presentation-add-rendering-by-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'add' operation (implying mutation), but doesn't describe what happens if the rendering already exists, whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero unnecessary 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 mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how 'finalLayout' interacts with 'placeHolder', or provide examples of valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the action ('Adds a rendering') and target ('to presentation of an item specified by item ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'presentation-add-rendering-by-path' which performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID, missing explicit differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'presentation-add-rendering-by-path' as an alternative for path-based operations, nor does it explain prerequisites like required permissions or when this operation is appropriate versus other presentation tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-id'.

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