trigger_presentation_cue

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 a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose what 'triggering' actually does (e.g., advances presentation, plays media, shows content), whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the index is invalid, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.

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 'triggering' entails behaviorally, what happens on success/failure, or how this differs from similar cue-triggering tools in the extensive sibling list. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by UUID' and 'by index' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., format of UUID, range constraints for index, what '0-based' means). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 target ('a specific cue by index in a presentation by UUID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'announcement_trigger_cue', 'library_trigger_presentation_cue', or 'trigger_focused_cue', which all appear to perform cue-related triggering operations 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 multiple cue-triggering tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'announcement_trigger_cue', 'trigger_focused_cue', 'trigger_presentation_next'), there's no indication whether this tool is for general presentations versus announcements, or how it differs from focused or next/previous triggering operations.

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