presentation-set-rendering-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., on linked layouts), or error handling. 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 that front-loads the core action ('Updates rendering'). It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by hinting at key parameters or context. Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'rendering' is in this system, the impact of updates, or return values. For a mutation tool in a presentation context with many sibling alternatives, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that parameters like 'placeholder' or 'dataSource' are optional updates ('if specified'), which is already clear from the schema's lack of required fields for them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool 'Updates rendering specified by item ID with new values,' which clearly identifies the action (update) and target (rendering). However, it's somewhat vague about what a 'rendering' entails in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-path' or 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id,' which handle similar operations via different identifiers or actions.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing rendering to update, or compare it to sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-path' (which uses a path instead of an ID) or 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id' (which creates new renderings). This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among similar tools.

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