presentation-set-layout-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Sets layout', implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are destructive or reversible, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste—'Sets layout for an item specified by Id.' It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail; within its brevity, every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 (mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral context, usage guidelines, or output expectations, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 5 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, not explaining parameter interactions (e.g., how layoutPath, layoutId, and finalLayout relate) or usage examples. 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 'Sets layout for an item specified by Id' clearly states the action (sets layout) and target (item by Id), but it's vague about what 'layout' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-layout-by-path' or 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the layout concept or 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. With siblings like 'presentation-set-layout-by-path' (using path instead of Id) and 'presentation-reset-layout-by-id' (resetting vs. setting), the description offers no context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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