Scene Save

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool saves to the existing path, implying a write operation, but it does not mention potential side effects like file overwriting, preconditions (e.g., an open scene), or failure modes if the scene lacks a path. This is a moderate gap for a persistence operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential context about when to use it. It is perfectly sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage context. However, it omits important operational details such as what happens if no scene is open or if the save fails, which could affect correct usage. The absence of annotation coverage makes this gap more significant.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the session_id parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's explanation of the optional session targeting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action: 'Save the currently edited scene to disk.' It further distinguishes this tool from sibling mutation tools by explaining that it persists in-memory changes to the existing path, which differentiates it from node/property mutation tools that only affect the in-memory scene.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs to call this tool after using node/property mutation tools to persist changes to disk, providing clear context for when it should be used. It doesn't name alternative save mechanisms or explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is well defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.