library_trigger_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 mentions 'Trigger' which implies an action that may start or activate something, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting other presentations), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely initiates a presentation.

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 without any fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of triggering a presentation (likely a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'triggering' entails, the expected outcome, error conditions, or how it interacts with other tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 the two parameters (libraryId and presentationId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 resource ('first cue of a presentation in a library'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'library_trigger_presentation_cue' or 'trigger_presentation_cue', which might handle specific cues rather than just the first one, but the distinction is somewhat implied by the wording.

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. With many sibling tools involving presentations and triggers (e.g., 'trigger_presentation', 'library_trigger_presentation_cue', 'playlists_trigger_active_presentation'), the description lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons, leaving usage unclear.

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