alexa_playback

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive action. The description adds substantial context beyond that: a mandatory user confirmation gate, a client-dependent two-path protocol, and the existence of a preview response carrying a confirmToken. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure the annotations do not provide.

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?

Two sentences with the capability front-loaded and the confirmation protocol second. No filler; the parenthetical pointer to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is compact and points to deeper detail rather than restating it.

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 an action tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts of the call flow, including the shape of the phase-1 response. It stops short of describing the successful result (e.g., playback-state change confirmation), but 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning about parameter lifecycle: confirmToken is only for the fallback path, is never used on the first call, and is ignored under elicitation. It clarifies when the parameter is meaningful rather than just what it is.

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 (play, pause, next, previous) against a specific resource (an Alexa device's current media), matching the command enum exactly. An agent can tell this apart from alexa_stop and alexa_get_now_playing from the description alone.

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 operational guidance: the confirmation prompt applies when the client supports one, otherwise a two-step preview/confirmToken flow is required. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., alexa_stop for halting playback), so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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