scene_save

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'save to disk' without stating that this overwrites the existing scene file, whether confirmation is required, what happens if no scene is currently edited, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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, concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition. For a simple save operation this level of conciseness is ideal.

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 has a simple schema with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of usage context and behavioral caveats leaves the description merely adequate. It is not as complete as it could be for a tool that persists state and may overwrite files.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (session_id), so the schema already explains its meaning and default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema adequately documents 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 'Save the currently edited scene to disk' uses a specific verb (save), a clear resource (scene), and a distinct target/destination (currently edited scene to disk). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like scene_open and scene_manage, which involve opening or managing rather than persisting.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer scene_save over scene_manage or resource_manage, or any exclusions. The context is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase 'currently edited scene.'

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