presentation-set-layout

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds nothing about whether an existing layout is overwritten, whether id/path resolution needs read access first, or what happens when both shared and final layouts exist. For a mutation tool this leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.

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 short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than well-earned conciseness, so it sits at the minimum viable level.

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?

A mutating presentation tool with seven parameters and no output schema needs more than one sentence. The description omits the required one-of semantics for id/path and layoutId/layoutPath, the overwrite behavior, and how this differs from the merge and reset layout siblings.

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 all seven parameters, including the id-or-path and layoutId-or-layoutPath alternatives and the shared-vs-final meaning of finalLayout. The description contributes nothing beyond that baseline.

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 verb ('Sets') and resource ('layout for an item'), so the basic action is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like presentation-merge-layout or presentation-reset-layout, all of which also act on an item's layout, leaving an agent to guess which 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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as merge-layout or reset-layout. The agent gets no routing signal at all.

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