announcement_trigger_active

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'retriggers' and 'starts from beginning', indicating a mutation action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it affects other announcements, what happens if no announcement is active, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational details for a mutation tool.

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 with zero waste: 'Retrigger the currently active announcement (starts from beginning)'. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation nature (implied by 'retrigger'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'retrigger' entails operationally, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that likely modifies state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and outcomes.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately doesn't discuss any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description avoids unnecessary parameter information.

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 ('retrigger') and target ('currently active announcement'), specifying it 'starts from beginning'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'announcement_trigger_next' or 'announcement_trigger_previous' by focusing on restarting the current announcement rather than navigating. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'announcement_trigger_cue'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage when you want to restart the active announcement from the beginning, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'announcement_trigger_next' or 'announcement_get_active'. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., requires an active announcement) or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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