looks_trigger

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. While 'trigger' implies a state-changing action, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if it's reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., does it interrupt other looks?), or the expected response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 front-loads the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Trigger a specific audience look to make it live/current') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall context for safe and effective use is poorly addressed, especially compared to sibling tools that may have similar triggering functions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The ID of the look to trigger.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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 clearly states the action ('trigger') and the resource ('a specific audience look'), and specifies the outcome ('to make it live/current'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'looks_get' or 'looks_get_current' by focusing on activation rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'trigger' tools (e.g., 'announcement_trigger_active') beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the look must exist or be prepared), what happens if the look is already live, or how it relates to other triggering tools for different resources (e.g., presentations or announcements). Without this context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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