Save Document

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds a confirmation/approval workflow detail that goes beyond the annotations. It stops short of disclosing the real destructive risks implied by overwrite and save_as, so the value added is partial.

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?

It is a single sentence, but it is not front-loaded with the tool's purpose and mixes a precondition with an oblique 'token retry' clause. The brevity here stems from under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 needn't be described, but for a destructive, non-idempotent save tool with 6 undocumented parameters and no annotation-level detail on data loss, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining document, save_as, overwrite, compact, process_id, and confirm_token. Its only indirect nod is the 'token'/'confirmationText' reference, which loosely maps to confirm_token; the other five parameters (notably overwrite and save_as) are entirely undocumented.

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 names the verb 'save' but frames it entirely as a workflow precondition ('Save only after showing confirmationText...') rather than stating what the tool does — e.g., that it saves the active Revit document. It never clarifies the resource being saved or how it differs from siblings like revit_sync_document or revit_close_document.

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 does give one concrete when-to-use condition (only after showing confirmationText and receiving explicit chat approval), which is actionable. However, it offers no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, and the reference to a 'token retry' is unexplained, leaving the actual trigger condition ambiguous.

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