Saves the active Revit document in its current location or to a specified new file path, letting AI clients persist model changes.
Saves the active document in place or to a specified new file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing about what the destruction means: an in-place save overwrites the original file, and a file_path save overwrites or creates a file on disk. It also does not say whether a confirmation or elevated permission is required. It does correctly reflect the in-place vs. new-file distinction, so it is not contradictory.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly terse for a destructive write operation.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the parameter semantics are covered. What is missing for a destructive, open-world mutation is error behavior (no active document), overwrite handling for an existing file_path, and any prerequisite about an open document.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has a null default, yet the description explains both branches: no path means save in place, a given path means write to that file. This is the main value the description adds and it compensates well for the bare schema.
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 and resource ("Saves the active document") and adds the two modes of operation, so it is clearly distinguishable from open_document and close_document. It does not differentiate against sync_with_central, which is the closest sibling in a Revit context.
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 indication of when to prefer this over sync_with_central or close_document, and no precondition such as "a document must already be open." The agent must infer that saving to central is a different tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.