presentation-merge-layout

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates but is not destructive. However, the description does not explain what 'merging' actually does — whether the shared layout is overwritten, whether conflicts are resolved, or what permissions are required. It adds little behavior beyond the annotation profile.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the key information front-loaded. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse to be fully useful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what a merge operation produces and how final vs. shared layout precedence is resolved. The annotations only cover the safety profile, leaving a significant behavioral gap.

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 documents id, path, database, and language fully, including the id/path exclusivity and database prefix behavior. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Merges') and the exact resources involved ('final and shared layouts of an item'). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like presentation-get-layout and presentation-set-layout, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus presentation-set-layout, presentation-reset-layout, or presentation-get-layout. The agent must infer the scenario purely from the name.

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