scene_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes the in-memory scene to disk and targets the 'existing path,' implying overwrite. It could be more explicit about destructive overwrite or prerequisites, but it is substantially transparent for a simple save 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining when and why to call the tool.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core workflow well: after mutations, save to the existing path. Some edge context such as overwrite warning or needing an open scene is not explicit, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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% for the only parameter, session_id, and the schema already documents 'Optional Godot session to target. Empty = active session.' The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save the currently edited scene to disk.' It also distinguishes this tool from sibling mutation tools by explaining that node/property mutations only alter the in-memory scene, while scene_save persists them.

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?

It explicitly says when to call the tool: after node/property mutations, 'call this explicitly to persist those mutations to the existing path.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not name specific alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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