trigger_active_group

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 'trigger' which implies an action that might change state, but doesn't disclose what 'trigger' means behaviorally (e.g., does it advance slides, play media, or activate effects?), whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the group is already triggered. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, 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 implied by 'trigger' (a state-changing action), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'trigger' does, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'groupId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., where to find group IDs or what constitutes a valid group), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('a specific group in the active presentation'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_focused_group' or 'trigger_presentation_group', which might have similar functions but 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'trigger_focused_group', 'trigger_presentation_group', and 'clear_trigger_group', there's no indication of the specific context (e.g., active vs. focused presentation) or prerequisites for using this tool.

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