messages_trigger

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 (show)', implying a display action, but doesn't disclose what 'trigger' means operationally (e.g., does it make the message visible on screens, activate it in a playlist, or something else?), what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what side effects occur. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief and to the point with a single sentence. It's front-loaded with the core action ('trigger (show) a specific message') and includes the optional aspect. While efficient, it could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from parameter context.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'trigger' means in this context, what happens when invoked, what the expected outcome is, or how it relates to other message-related tools. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed for 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 already fully documents both parameters (messageId and tokens). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional token values to override defaults', which slightly clarifies the tokens parameter's purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or examples beyond what the schema states.

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 states the tool 'triggers (shows) a specific message', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stage_show_message' or 'messages_clear', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this message-triggering operation from others in the system.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that manipulate messages (messages_clear, messages_create, messages_get, stage_show_message, etc.), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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