alexa_garage_door

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the security rationale for confirming, the exact confirmation handshake (prompt vs. phase-1 preview + confirmToken), and a pointer to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. This is exactly the superset of behavioral disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loads the action and resource, then escalates to the safety warning and confirmation flow. Slightly dense in the final clause (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE parenthetical), but every sentence contributes and none is redundant.

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, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the risk, the confirmation requirement, and both confirmation mechanisms. Nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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% and the schema already documents action, target, and confirmToken in detail (including 'never on the first call, never invented'). The description restates the two-step flow but adds little parameter-level detail the schema does not already carry; 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 pair (open/close) and a specific resource (a garage door connected to Alexa), which is unambiguous even among the smart-home siblings like alexa_control_smart_home or alexa_lock. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives clear context — garage doors connected to Alexa, and that opening is a security-sensitive action requiring user confirmation — plus the two invocation paths (client elicitation vs. preview+confirmToken). It does not, however, contrast with sibling tools (e.g. alexa_control_smart_home) or state when-not to use it.

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