trigger_presentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'trigger' but doesn't explain what this action entails—whether it starts playback, changes focus, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens if the presentation is already active. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loads the core action and includes the optional parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, permissions, or how this tool relates to siblings. For a 'trigger' operation in a system with many presentation-related tools, more context is needed for 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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (presentationUuid and index). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for UUID or behavior when index is omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('trigger') and resource ('a specific presentation by UUID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_active_presentation' or 'trigger_focused_presentation', which likely trigger presentations based on different selection criteria.

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 that trigger presentations (e.g., 'trigger_active_presentation', 'trigger_focused_presentation', 'library_trigger_presentation'), the agent receives no help in choosing between them based on context or prerequisites.

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