presentation-merge-layout-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'merges' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, or any side effects like rate limits or data changes. The lack of details makes it difficult for an agent to assess risks or outcomes, though it doesn't contradict annotations.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly, which aligns well with the conciseness criterion.

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 the complexity of a 'merge' operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'merges' means in practice, the expected outcome, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with three parameters and potential data mutation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, making it incomplete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'id', 'database', and 'language' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters interact during the merge process. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is contributed.

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 the action ('merges') and the resources ('final and shared layouts'), but it's vague about what 'merges' entails—does it combine, overwrite, or synchronize? It distinguishes from sibling 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path' by specifying 'by item Id', but the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous without clarifying the merge behavior.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for merging layouts by ID, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path' or other layout-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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