presentation-switch-rendering

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds critical behavior the annotations cannot convey: the instance receives a NEW regenerated uniqueId, the old one ceases to exist, and one row is returned per switched instance keyed by the new UniqueId. This is exactly the non-obvious, high-risk detail an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the action, the second carries the essential behavioral and return-value caveats. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things the structured data cannot: the ID-regeneration side effect and the shape of the return row. An agent has everything needed to call it and to chain follow-up calls correctly.

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 every one of the 10 parameters is already documented (including the 'supply this or that' alternatives). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Switches') and resource ('an existing rendering on an item') with the replacement target ('an alternate one'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like presentation-add-rendering, presentation-set-rendering, and presentation-remove-rendering, which perform different layout mutations.

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?

It gives explicit post-invocation guidance ('use that UniqueId for any follow-up call, the old one no longer exists'), which is valuable. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as presentation-set-rendering or presentation-add-rendering, leaving the selection criterion implied rather than explicit.

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