save_blend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core effect (save in place, implying overwrite of the current file), a guardrail (only on user request), and an important failure mode (unsaved files fail). It could be slightly more explicit about overwriting behavior, but "in place" communicates it.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by usage guardrails and the fallback tool, all in minimal space.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, this description is complete: it defines the action, the precondition, the failure case, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation gap to compensate for. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inventing parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Save the user's open .blend file in place." It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling save_blend_as by emphasizing in-place saving, so an agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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?

It explicitly says when to act ("Only do this when the user asks") and when not to ("Fails if the file has never been saved"), and it names the alternative: "use save_blend_as then." This is clear routing guidance.

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