Save Document

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those hints by disclosing the two-step confirmation flow and clarifying that the first call is a no-op. It still does not explain the destructive overwrite risk or what happens to unsaved changes, so it is not fully transparent.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and immediately follows with the confirmation requirement. There is no filler or redundancy, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

Given six parameters, zero schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It covers the confirmation token but omits the meaning of the document parameter and all optional save behaviors (compact, save_as, overwrite, process_id), leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly in many cases.

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%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It only mentions confirm_token, leaving document, compact, save_as, overwrite, and process_id completely unexplained; this is a severe gap for a save operation with multiple optional modifiers.

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 clear verb ('Save') and resource ('a document'), which is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes it from siblings like open, close, or new document. However, it does not differentiate 'save' from potentially overlapping siblings such as revit_sync_document or revit_save_document's save_as behavior, so it falls short of the top score.

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 gives a critical prerequisite: a confirm_token from a first call that changes nothing. This is useful workflow guidance, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like revit_sync_document, nor does it mention any exclusions or contexts for saving.

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