Create a restorable .blend snapshot with a canonical scene fingerprint and stable object UUID inventory, enabling reversible Blender scene edits.
Create a restorable .blend snapshot under CODEX3D_ARTIFACT_ROOT with a canonical scene fingerprint and stable object UUID inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot_id | No | ||
| source_turn | No | ||
| source_action_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotation hints false, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add real value: it names the artifact root, indicates the snapshot is a .blend file, and states that it includes a scene fingerprint and UUID inventory. It does not disclose overwrite behavior or side effects on object UUIDs, but the core write behavior and artifact placement are clearly conveyed.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase adds information about the snapshot's location and contents. It loses a point only because the compactness leaves out parameter-level detail.
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 snapshot tool with three optional but undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for invocation beyond the no-argument case. An agent still lacks the meaning of provenance parameters, whether a snapshot_id is auto-generated when omitted, and what the tool returns or confirms after creation.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain snapshot_id, source_turn, or source_action_id. The body text mentions snapshot content but never connects any parameter to its meaning or required format, so an agent cannot determine what values these optional fields should take.
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 states a clear verb and resource: create a restorable .blend snapshot under CODEX3D_ARTIFACT_ROOT, with specific content (canonical scene fingerprint, stable object UUID inventory). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling blender_save_checkpoint, so it stops short of a 5.
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 is given on when to use snapshot creation versus alternatives such as blender_save_checkpoint or blender_restore_snapshot, nor is there any prerequisite such as an open scene or existing object IDs. The only implied usage is 'create a snapshot,' but the when/when-not distinction is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.