scene_save

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'save to a path' with no mention of side effects (e.g., overwriting, creating directories), prerequisites (e.g., a loaded scene), or return behavior. 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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no superfluous words. The verb and subject are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. There is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the thumbnail parameter, file path conventions, error handling, or any side effects. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without additional assumptions.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It implicitly explains 'path' as the destination, but the 'thumbnail' parameter is completely unmentioned. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema and fails to cover one of two parameters.

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) and the resources (project .zprj or garment .zpac) and destination (a path). It distinguishes from checkpoint_save by implying file-based output rather than internal state. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from scene_export, which might also save to a file, so it's not fully specific to sibling tools.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like checkpoint_save, snapshot, or scene_export. It neither states typical scenarios nor contrasts with other save/export tools. An agent would have no clues about which tool to pick for a given task.

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