alexa_run_routine

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the breadth of possible side effects (lights, locks, messages, purchases) and the full confirmation protocol including the two-step preview + confirmToken fallback and MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure a mutation 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?

The most important constraint (runs arbitrary side effects; confirm first) is front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information. It is dense rather than padded, though slightly long for three parameters.

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 helpfully explains the phase-1 'confirmation-required' response shape and the confirmToken round-trip. It covers behavior thoroughly; only the exact response payload fields are left implicit.

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 routine, device, and confirmToken with defaults and constraints. The description reinforces the confirmToken usage rules but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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+resource ('Run an Alexa routine now') and clarifies the exact semantics ('exactly as if its trigger fired'), which distinguishes it from siblings like alexa_run_builtin or alexa_speak. An agent can tell what this does 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 a clear precondition ('check what it does before running it') and describes the confirmation behavior the agent must follow. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling (e.g. alexa_run_builtin) to route between, so it stops just short of an explicit when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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