trigger_presentation_group

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 disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether the presentation must be active), error handling, or return value. The description only states the basic action.

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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and to the point, but could incorporate more useful details without becoming verbose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the existence of many sibling tools for triggering groups, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how this tool fits into the workflow or what distinguishes it from similar tools, nor does it describe the outcome.

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% as both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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'), the resource ('specific group in a presentation'), and the method ('by UUID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that trigger groups in different contexts (e.g., active or focused).

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?

While the description implies the tool is for triggering a specific group by UUID, it does not explicitly guide when to use this over alternatives like trigger_active_group or trigger_focused_group. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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