presentation-set-layout-by-path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Sets layout' implying a mutation, but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether this overwrites existing layouts, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting other items), or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by including key details like parameter highlights or usage context.

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 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'layout' entails, the impact of setting it, possible outcomes, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 all 4 parameters (itemPath, layoutPath, language, finalLayout). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions 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 states the action ('Sets layout') and target ('for an item specified by path'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'layout' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-layout-by-id' or 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific path-based variant.

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-id' (ID-based) and 'presentation-merge-layout-by-path' (merge operation), the description lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or distinctions, offering no help in tool selection.

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