macros_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. 'Trigger a specific macro' implies a write/mutation action but doesn't specify effects (e.g., whether it executes immediately, requires permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation). It lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what 'triggering' entails operationally, leaving 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Trigger a specific macro', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the core action, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 tool (implied by 'trigger'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after triggering, potential errors, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely performs an important action in a system with many components, more completeness is needed to guide 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the macro to trigger'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the 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 'Trigger a specific macro' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'macros_trigger'. It provides the verb 'trigger' and resource 'macro', but lacks specificity about what triggering entails (e.g., execution, activation, or running a predefined sequence). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'macros_get' or 'macros_get_all', which are clearly read operations, leaving the purpose vague beyond the basic action.

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., needing a macro ID from 'macros_get' tools), exclusions, or contextual cues. With many sibling tools like 'trigger_active_presentation' or 'playlists_trigger', there's no indication of how 'macros_trigger' fits into the broader workflow, making usage unclear.

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