alexa_fire_tv

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not in annotations: that every invocation requires user confirmation, and the exact two-phase token protocol when the client lacks elicitation support.

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 is front-loaded in one sentence, then the confirmation mechanics in a second. Both earn their place, though the parenthetical '(see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE)' points at an env var an agent cannot read and adds little actionable value.

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?

Covers purpose, required params via a complete schema, and the confirmation/return-token behavior in lieu of an output schema. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., device unreachable) or overlapping-action boundaries with alexa_stop/alexa_playback.

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 device, command enum, and confirmToken are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the token flow but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema states, so the 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 set and resource: 'Control a Fire TV through Alexa' followed by an explicit enumeration of the five supported actions (on/off, pause/resume, home). This distinguishes it from siblings like alexa_playback, alexa_stop, and alexa_speak, which handle other device/action domains.

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 clear conditional guidance for the confirmation flow: use the elicitation prompt where supported, otherwise two-step preview + confirmToken. It does not say when to choose this tool over alexa_stop or alexa_playback for overlapping actions (pause/resume), leaving some sibling routing to inference.

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