focus_active_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Focus' implies a state change operation, but the description doesn't clarify what 'focusing' entails (e.g., does it bring the presentation to foreground, select it for control, or something else?), what permissions are needed, or what happens if no presentation is active. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, and the meaning is front-loaded without unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'focus' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool confidently in context.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which aligns with the empty input schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't attempt to document non-existent parameters.

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 'Focus the currently active presentation' clearly states the action (focus) and target (currently active presentation), but it's somewhat vague about what 'focus' means operationally. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'focus_presentation' or 'playlists_focus_active_presentation', which appear to serve similar functions.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools containing 'focus' and 'presentation' in their names (e.g., focus_presentation, focus_next_presentation, playlists_focus_active_presentation), the description offers no differentiation or context for choosing this specific tool.

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