cocos_scene_saveSave the current Cocos Creator scene to persist changes and check if modifications have been applied to the project's scene data.
保存当前场景并查询修改状态
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| instanceId | No | ||
| operationId | No | ||
| expectedRevision | No | ||
| runtimeInstanceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a destructive mutation (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description's 'save' is consistent. However, the description adds little beyond what annotations provide and does not explain what happens on save, what state is queried, or what 'modification status' means.
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 short phrase, but this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Every word restates the title; no useful content is 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 destructive tool (destructiveHint=true) with 6 undocumented parameters and no output schema, this definition is grossly incomplete. An agent has no idea what to pass, what the save does, what gets destroyed, or what the query returns.
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 0% with 6 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The description must compensate for the schema gap but provides zero parameter information, leaving projectId, params, operationId, expectedRevision, and the instance fields unexplained.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many scene-related siblings (cocos_scene_query, cocos_scene_snapshot, cocos_scene_diff, cocos_scene_open, cocos_scene_validate), there is no differentiation and no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.