presentation-set-rendering-parameter

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive write. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no mention of required permissions, what happens on conflict, or side effects. With annotations providing only a minimal safety profile, the description carries the burden for mutation semantics and falls short.

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 sentence, but it is grammatically convoluted and slightly misleading ('from the rendering' for an add/update operation). It is concise but not well-structured or front-loaded.

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, no annotations beyond basic safety, and siblings that could be confused, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens to existing parameters, whether it merges or replaces, or how it relates to other presentation tools.

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 7 parameters in detail (id/path alternation, database context, finalLayout behavior). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 verb ('Adds and updates') and a resource ('specified rendering parameter from the rendering placed on an item'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it is grammatically awkward and doesn't clearly distinguish itself from siblings like presentation-set-rendering or presentation-add-rendering. The phrase 'from the rendering' is confusing for an operation that adds/updates.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus presentation-set-rendering, presentation-add-rendering, or presentation-remove-rendering-parameter. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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