presentation-switch-rendering-by-unique-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'switches' a rendering, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, 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 front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or outcomes.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'switching' entails operationally, what happens to the old rendering, or what the result looks like. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively.

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 6 parameters. The description mentions 'item ID', 'unique ID', and 'new rendering ID', which align with required parameters, but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 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 ('switches'), the target ('an existing rendering'), and the mechanism ('specified by unique ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-id' and 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path' by specifying the 'unique ID' method. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives or explain why one would use unique ID versus ID/path.

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 like 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-id' or 'presentation-switch-rendering-by-path'. The description mentions the tool's mechanism but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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