Save the current Nuke script in place or to a new file by providing an optional path for save-as.
Save the script. If path is given, saves as a new file.
Args: path: optional file path for save-as. omit to save in place.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | optional file path for save-as. omit to save in place. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is openWorldHint: true, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does not disclose whether saving requires specific permissions, whether it overwrites an existing file on save-as, whether the operation is destructive, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool with almost no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
Uses a clean two-sentence structure with the conditional behavior front-loaded, but then duplicates the parameter description in an Args block that adds no information. The duplication is not terrible but reduces conciseness.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and only a permissive openWorldHint annotation, the description should explain what happens on save, whether the operation can fail, and its effect on existing files. It covers the path semantics but leaves the core behavioral context absent.
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 schema already fully documents the single 'path' parameter, including that it is optional and what it does. The description's Args block merely repeats the schema text verbatim; it adds no new semantics or format details.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: saving the script, with a conditional distinction (path given → save-as, omitted → save in place). Siblings like load_script and get_script_info are clearly different operations, though the description doesn't explicitly name them, so it's clear without explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
Gives a clear conditional on when the behavior changes based on the 'path' argument. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like setup_write or render_frames, which are the more common ways to persist output.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.