presentation-add-placeholder-setting

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered, but the description adds nothing beyond the name: no detail on overwrite behavior if the setting already exists, idempotency, required item state, or permissions. For a mutation with no output schema, the description should carry more of that burden.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, mutually exclusive addressing options, a layout-selection flag, a mutation operation, and no output schema, the description does not supply enough for confident invocation. The agent must fall back entirely on schema text and has no notion of failure modes or post-conditions.

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 100%, so the schema already explains the id/path, placeholderSettingId/placeholderSettingPath alternatives, database default and finalLayout semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('adds a placeholder setting') to a specific target ('an item'), so the agent knows what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from closely related siblings such as presentation-add-rendering, presentation-set-rendering-parameter, or presentation-remove-placeholder-setting, leaving the agent to infer which presentation mutation applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the item must have a layout), and no mention of alternatives or when NOT to use it. The agent gets no routing help between this and the other presentation-* mutation tools.

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