trigger_focused_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'trigger' means operationally (e.g., fade in, show immediately), any side effects, permissions required, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation-like 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, brief sentence that gets to the point. However, it could be slightly more informative 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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on what 'trigger' does and how it differs from similar tools. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 input schema covers the single parameter with a description. The tool's description adds minimal context that the group is in the focused presentation, but does not clarify how to obtain a valid groupId. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.

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 that the tool triggers a specific group in the focused presentation, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trigger_focused_cue' (trigger a cue) and 'trigger_focused_next' (trigger next item), but could be more explicit about what 'trigger' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'trigger_presentation_group' or other trigger tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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