presentation-remove-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. While 'removes' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects published content, or what happens to dependent components. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'renderings' are in this context, what the consequences of removal are, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for understanding this operation's impact.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'owners item ID' which aligns with the 'itemId' parameter, but adds no additional semantic context about parameter interactions, filtering logic, or how multiple optional filters combine. 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 ('removes renderings') and target ('from an item by owners item ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-path' which performs the same operation but uses a different identifier type.

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 like 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-path' or other presentation manipulation tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for removing renderings.

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