trigger_focused_group

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' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'trigger' actually does (e.g., starts playback, activates effects), whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse at a glance.

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 of a 'trigger' operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'trigger' entails, what happens after triggering, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool in a presentation system with many siblings, this lacks critical context 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'groupId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'group' represents or where to find group IDs), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param info.

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 focused presentation'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_active_group' or 'clear_trigger_group', which might have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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_active_group', 'trigger_focused_presentation', and 'clear_trigger_group', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

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