trigger_focused_previous

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'trigger' implies an action that changes state, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if no presentation is focused, whether the action is reversible, or what side effects might occur. This is inadequate 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 that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the core functionality.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic action but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'focused presentation' means, what happens if there isn't one, or what the expected outcome is. Given the complexity of presentation control systems and rich sibling toolset, more guidance would be helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which aligns with the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema already indicates no inputs needed.

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 ('the previous slide in the focused presentation'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'trigger_previous_slide' or 'announcement_trigger_previous', which might have overlapping functionality in 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_previous_slide', 'announcement_trigger_previous', and 'playlists_trigger_focused_previous', there's no indication of which context this tool applies to or what prerequisites might be needed.

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