set_presentation

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a mutation, but the description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: all paths are read locally with no URL fetching, assets bind to existing rectangle IDs, font embedding requires a license, and native source is retained for clean-machine exports. It omits the optimistic-concurrency implication of expectedRevision and does not state what gets overwritten, but it comfortably exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then constraints and gotchas. Dense but each sentence carries information; no filler or repetition.

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 destructive mutation tool with seven parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should cover more. It handles the asset/font path semantics well but leaves revision-conflict behavior, the free-form presentation object, preview, and the concrete consequences of the destructive flag unexplained.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it clarifies font.license purpose, that assets.path is read locally and attaches via existing rectangle IDs, and the intent of includeSource. It says nothing about name, expectedRevision, presentation, or preview, leaving several of the seven parameters unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 names specific operations (embed fonts/assets, update brand/fallback/description/text mode) and a clear resource scope, so the agent knows this modifies an existing drawing's presentation layer. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like update_drawing, patch_drawing, or edit_drawing, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named among the many sibling tools that also mutate drawings. The path/font licensing notes imply context but do not route the agent between set_presentation and its siblings.

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