focus_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool focuses without triggering, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what 'focus' means operationally (e.g., makes it active for editing vs. just selects it), or what happens if the presentation is already focused. For a mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does and what it doesn't do.

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 has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks depth. For a tool that likely changes system state (focusing), the absence of annotations means the description should cover more behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a state-changing operation.

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% with one parameter clearly documented as 'The UUID of the presentation to focus'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since 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 'Focus a presentation without triggering it' clearly states the action (focus) and resource (presentation), and distinguishes it from triggering operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'focus_active_presentation' or 'focus_next_presentation' in the sibling list, which would require more specific scope information.

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 by specifying 'without triggering it', suggesting this is for selection/preparation rather than activation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'focus_active_presentation' or 'trigger_presentation', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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