trigger_active_group

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Trigger a specific group' without explaining what 'trigger' entails (e.g., activates the group's content, starts animations). No side effects, permissions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 focused sentence. Every word is relevant and front-loaded. However, given the lack of annotations, a slightly longer description could improve completeness without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core action and scope. However, it omits behavioral context (what triggering does) and fails to mention that the group must exist in the active presentation's timeline. It is minimally complete but has room for improvement.

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 single parameter 'groupId' is fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning, such as how to obtain the ID or what formats are accepted. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 group in the active presentation). It effectively communicates that this tool operates on the active presentation, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like 'trigger_focused_group' or 'trigger_presentation_group'. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with these alternatives.

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 its many siblings. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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