library_trigger_presentation_cue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'trigger' but does not specify effects (e.g., whether it starts playback, changes slides, or requires specific permissions), potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 cue (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'trigger' entails behaviorally, what happens on success or failure, or any dependencies, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely.

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 three parameters (libraryId, presentationId, index). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the parameters are used to identify the cue, which is already clear from the schema. This meets 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 of a presentation in a library'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_presentation_cue' or 'library_trigger_presentation', which might handle similar operations without the library context or with different scopes.

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 triggering cues or presentations (e.g., 'trigger_presentation_cue', 'library_trigger_presentation'), the description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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