scene_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'save to disk' implies writing, it does not disclose whether the file is overwritten, what prerequisites exist (e.g., an active scene), or what failure modes might occur. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero filler or redundant information, making it an excellent example of concise writing.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and an output schema that presumably covers return behavior. However, the description omits important behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., an open scene) and whether the operation overwrites the existing file. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides a complete description for session_id, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema handles it, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (save), the resource (currently edited scene), and the destination (to disk). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scene_manage, the verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool (persisting the current scene), but the description provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that a scene must be open or how it differs from scene_manage.

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