presentation-reset-layout-by-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'resets the layout' but fails to explain what this operation does—whether it's destructive (e.g., removes custom settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the outcome looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Resets the layout'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the reset behavior, potential impacts, or return values, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (id, finalLayout, language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'finalLayout' interacts with 'language' or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 states the verb ('resets') and resource ('layout of an item'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it's vague about what 'resets' entails—whether it restores defaults, clears customizations, or something else—and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-reset-layout-by-path' or 'presentation-set-layout-by-id', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., item state), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'presentation-reset-layout-by-path' (which likely uses a path instead of an ID), leaving the agent without usage direction.

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