save_scene

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds nothing on the safety side. The critical behavior — that an empty file_path overwrites the stage's own file in place — is documented only in the schema, not the description, even though it is the main risk an agent needs flagged before calling.

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?

One short sentence with the action and target front-loaded; no filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values. But for a destructive save operation, the in-place-overwrite behavior and any distinction from other file-producing siblings should be surfaced in the description itself, not left to schema inspection.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'The USD file to write; empty overwrites the stage's own file,' so the schema fully carries parameter semantics. The description adds no format, extension, or path-resolution guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('save') and resource ('current scene') with the target format ('USD file'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like export_prim_as_file, flatten_usd, or dump_scene, all of which also produce files from scene data.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus export_prim_as_file or flatten_usd, nor any prerequisite (e.g., must edits be committed, does it validate the stage first). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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