presentation-switch-rendering-by-path

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 indicates a mutation ('switches'), implying changes to presentation layouts, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on other renderings), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies content without structured safety hints.

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 and key parameters. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., success/failure outcomes, rate limits), does not explain the 'finalLayout' parameter's implications, and omits any mention of return values or error handling, leaving critical gaps 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 five parameters. The description mentions paths for the item and renderings, aligning with the schema, but adds no extra meaning, syntax examples, or clarification beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 resources involved ('existing rendering' and 'alternate one'), specifying that both are identified by paths. It distinguishes from siblings like 'presentation-add-rendering-by-path' or 'presentation-remove-rendering-by-path' by focusing on replacement rather than addition or removal, but does not explicitly contrast with 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-unique-id'.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing renderings), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'presentation-set-rendering-by-path', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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