announcement_trigger_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It doesn't explain what 'triggering' actually does (e.g., starts playback, advances to cue), whether this requires specific permissions, or what happens if the index is invalid. The description is too basic for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'triggering' entails, what happens upon success/failure, or how this interacts with the active announcement state. The context requires more behavioral detail than provided.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'index' well-documented in the schema as 'The index of the cue to trigger (0-based)'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Trigger') and target ('a specific cue by index in the active announcement'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'announcement_trigger_active' or 'announcement_trigger_next', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. With multiple announcement trigger tools available (trigger_active, trigger_next, trigger_previous), there's no indication of when index-based triggering is preferred over other methods.

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