presentation-reset-layout-by-path

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' which implies a mutation, but doesn't specify what 'reset' means (e.g., reverts to default, clears settings), whether it's destructive or reversible, permission requirements, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it's overly terse and could benefit from slightly more detail to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'reset' entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it interacts with other presentation tools. This leaves the agent with inadequate context for safe and effective use.

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 fully documents the three parameters (path, finalLayout, language). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of 'finalLayout' or 'language' choices. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Resets the layout of an item by path' clearly states the action (resets) and target (layout of an item), but it's vague about what 'reset' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-set-layout-by-path'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the scope of resetting.

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 such as 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id' (which uses an ID instead of path) or 'presentation-set-layout-by-path' (which sets rather than resets). The description implies usage by path but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.

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