playlists_trigger_active_announcement_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('trigger') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, if it has side effects (e.g., interrupting current playback), or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap 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 with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 (a mutation tool triggering items in playlists), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or what to expect after triggering, leaving critical gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 'index' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining what 'index' refers to, valid ranges, or examples), so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 verb ('trigger') and resource ('a specific announcement item in the active playlist'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'playlists_trigger_active_announcement' or 'announcement_trigger_active', which might cause confusion about when to use this specific item-triggering variant.

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. With many sibling tools involving triggering announcements or playlist items (e.g., 'playlists_trigger_active_announcement', 'announcement_trigger_active', 'playlists_trigger_active_presentation_item'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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