trigger_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool triggers actions but doesn't explain what 'trigger' entails (e.g., immediate execution, side effects, error handling), permissions required, or response behavior. This leaves significant gaps 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by categorized examples and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter context adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral traits like side effects or error conditions, making it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by listing available action categories and examples, which clarifies the 'action_name' parameter beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify exact string values or validation rules, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose as 'Trigger a REAPER action by name,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'play' or 'record' that might overlap in functionality, though it implies broader coverage through the categorized action list.

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 implied usage by listing available action categories and examples, suggesting this tool is for triggering various REAPER actions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'play' or 'record' (which are listed as siblings), and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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