Save modifications to a Godot scene file. Optionally specify a new path to create a variant.
Save changes to a scene file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newPath | No | Optional: New path to save the scene to (for creating variants) | |
| scenePath | Yes | Scene file path (relative to project) | |
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose whether saving overwrites the existing scene file, requires the scene to be loaded, or returns a success/failure status. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, and it is mostly silent about side effects beyond the obvious act of saving.
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 short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose. There is no unnecessary prose, and every word earns its place.
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 file-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not state the effect on the original file, the conditions under which newPath is used, or whether an agent should call a different tool first to ensure the scene is loaded. The presence of many scene-related siblings makes this lack of surrounding context more damaging.
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 already describes all three parameters clearly, including the optional nature of newPath and the relative path note for scenePath. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline for this dimension is high and the description does not need to compensate.
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 changes to a scene file' identifies the verb and resource clearly, but it doesn't differentiate from the many sibling tools like create_scene, modify_scene_node, or set_main_scene. It implies a save operation, but without stating whether this creates a new file, overwrites, or applies only to open scenes, it is only marginally clear.
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 about when to use save_scene versus alternatives such as modify_scene_node or create_scene. The optional newPath parameter hints at saving variants but the description does not explicitly say when to use it or what happens to the original file. An agent is left to infer the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.