alexa_control_smart_home

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

Annotations only supply generic hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true); the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: an offline device surfaces as an error rather than a silent no-op, and the tool always asks for confirmation first, with a concrete two-step fallback and a confirmToken that must never be invented or reused. That is materially more than the annotations convey.

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?

Purpose and action list are front-loaded, then sibling exclusions, then the confirmation protocol in a compact final sentence. It is dense for a single paragraph and the confirmation detail partially duplicates the confirmToken schema description, which costs a point, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the two response shapes an agent will encounter (error on offline devices, and confirmation-required preview/confirmToken), which is the critical missing piece. It stops short of describing success-response contents or idempotency of repeat calls, a minor residual gap.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the confirmToken rules and enum values. The description's parameter-related content (brightness 0–100, colorName/colorTemperatureName examples, target sourced from alexa_list_smart_home) largely restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (control) plus resource (Alexa smart-home device, group or scene) and enumerates the action set (on/off, brightness, colour, white temperature, scene activation). It also explicitly names what it is NOT for, routing thermostats, device modes and doors to their own tools, so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening the 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?

Explicitly names alternatives and the conditions selecting them: 'Thermostats use alexa_set_thermostat; other device modes (fan mode, vacuum) alexa_set_device_mode; doors have their own tools.' It also spells out the confirmation workflow (client prompt vs. two-step preview/confirmToken), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs before invoking.

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