playlists_trigger_active_presentation_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'trigger' but doesn't clarify what triggering entails—whether it starts playback, advances to a slide, or performs another action. It also omits behavioral details like side effects, permissions needed, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('trigger') and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'trigger' does behaviorally, what happens upon success or failure, or how it interacts with the system (e.g., affecting playback state). Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed for safe and 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%, with the parameter 'index' clearly documented as 'The item index to trigger'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as index format (zero-based vs. one-based) or valid ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.

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 ('specific presentation item in the active playlist'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'playlists_trigger_active_presentation' or 'playlists_trigger_focused_item', which appear to serve similar triggering functions for different contexts.

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 (e.g., 'playlists_trigger_active_presentation', 'playlists_trigger_focused_item'), the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether an active playlist must exist) or comparisons to other triggering methods.

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