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 for behavioral transparency. It only states the trigger action without disclosing side effects (e.g., state changes, destructive nature) or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. It contains no unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for basic usage but lacks context about what triggering a cue entails (e.g., alters presentation state) and how it differs from similar sibling tools in terms of behavior.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, providing clear definitions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'by index' and 'by UUID', so it does not enhance parameter understanding.

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), the resource (cue), and the identifying parameters (index and presentation UUID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'trigger_presentation' and 'trigger_next_slide' by specifying 'by index in a presentation by UUID'.

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 implies usage when a specific cue needs to be triggered by index and presentation UUID, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling trigger tools.

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