set_presentation_rect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the operation name. It does not disclose side effects, whether the rect is overwritten, validation behavior, or the need to be in presentation mode.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded. It is under-specified, but conciseness itself is effective.

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?

Given a 3-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It omits domain-specific explanations and parameter format details, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool 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 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the three parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of box_id, bridge_session_id, or the expected format of presentation_rect (likely [x, y, width, height]).

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 clearly states a specific action ('Set') and resource ('presentation rect') for a 'patcher box', which is enough to understand the basic operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_box_attrs or explain what 'presentation rect' means.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid box_id, being in presentation mode) or any context about typical use cases.

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