save_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It discloses a key trait: 'Load and re-save' indicates a file-mutating operation. However, it omits important details such as whether the original file is overwritten, if any error handling or rollback occurs, or what the return value looks like on success or failure.

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 sentence of only 10 words, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Each word contributes to understanding; there is no filler, repetition, 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?

This tool mutates a file, has no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter (scenePath). The description only covers high-level behavior. Missing context includes return values, error behavior, overwrite semantics, required project state, and parameter formats—all essential for reliable use in an agentic workflow.

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 schema describes only projectPath; scenePath has no description (50% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-level information. An agent cannot determine whether scenePath should be an absolute path, relative path, or resource UID, nor can it understand the relationship between scenePath and projectPath beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific action: 'Load and re-save a scene to validate its serialization.' It names the resource (scene), the verbs (load and re-save), and a unique purpose (validating serialization), which distinguishes it from related tools like duplicate_scene or create_scene.

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 implies a use case (validation of serialization) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or state any preconditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability only from the purpose statement.

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