alexa_cancel_alarm_reminder

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds material context beyond them: that a recurring alarm is deleted entirely rather than just its next occurrence, and that a confirmation prompt (or a two-step preview/confirmToken fallback per MCP_CONFIRM_MODE) gates the mutation.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the disambiguation and confirmation details follow in order of importance. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs; only the parenthetical explanation of the fallback is slightly 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the action, the two addressing modes, the irreversibility of recurring deletions, and the full confirmation protocol. Nothing required to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: id provenance, case-insensitive label matching, and the disambiguation role of 'device'. The confirmToken flow is also explained in prose, reinforcing the schema's warning against inventing or reusing tokens.

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?

States a precise verb+resource pair ('Cancel (delete) an Alexa alarm, timer or reminder') and immediately names the sibling tool that supplies the id (alexa_list_alarms_reminders), so it is distinguishable from alexa_create_reminder and alexa_create_timer without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection rules: use 'id' from alexa_list_alarms_reminders, or fall back to 'label' (adding 'device' when a label collides). It also describes the two invocation modes for confirmation, which is the key procedural guidance an agent needs before calling.

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