alexa_lock

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/openWorldHint) by disclosing the security impact of unlocking, the Amazon-side voice PIN/app requirement, how refusal surfaces (as an error), and the full two-phase confirmation protocol including preview plus confirmToken. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the structured fields cannot carry.

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 core action, then layers the security warning and the confirmation mechanics in a logical order with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries operational weight; only the parenthetical MCP_CONFIRM_MODE pointer is slightly cryptic without a reference.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the risk, the external-auth failure mode, and the exact retry contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly — including how to handle a confirmation-required response — 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 description coverage is 100%, so action, target and confirmToken are already fully documented, including the confirmToken's phase-1 provenance and non-reuse rule. The description reinforces the confirmToken flow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ("Lock or unlock a smart lock (door lock) connected to Alexa"), immediately disambiguating it from close siblings such as alexa_garage_door and alexa_control_smart_home. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs 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 conditional guidance: confirm with the user before unlocking, and expect a possible voice PIN / app challenge. It lacks explicit sibling routing (e.g. when to prefer alexa_control_smart_home or alexa_get_smart_home_state), so it stops short of the 5 benchmark, but the caution and prerequisites are well stated.

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