presentation-set-rendering-parameter-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 indicates a mutation ('Adds and updates'), but fails to detail critical aspects such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or the effect on existing parameters. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured to highlight key parameters or usage scenarios, but overall it avoids waste.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning, syntax, or format details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the structure of the 'parameter' object or the implications of 'finalLayout'. 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 clearly states the action ('Adds and updates') and the target ('the specified rendering parameter from the rendering placed on the item specified by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-parameter-by-path' or 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-id', which handle similar operations via different identifiers or read-only 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, such as 'presentation-set-rendering-parameter-by-path' for path-based operations or 'presentation-get-rendering-parameter-by-id' for retrieval. It also lacks information on prerequisites, like whether the item or rendering must exist, leaving usage context implied but not explicit.

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