presentation-switch-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. It states the tool 'switches' renderings, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting layouts), or error conditions. 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key elements like 'existing rendering' and 'item ID'.

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 6 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke it correctly. For a mutation tool in this context, more detail is needed to be considered complete.

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 six parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'itemId' holds renderings and 'oldRenderingId' and 'newRenderingId' are involved in the switch. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights like parameter interactions or examples.

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 ('switches') and the resource ('an existing rendering'), specifying it operates on renderings within items. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation-add-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-id' by focusing on replacement rather than addition or removal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path' or 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-unique-id', which are similar tools using different identifiers.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing renderings), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path'. Without this, an agent might struggle to choose between similar tools based on ID, path, or unique ID.

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