alexa_set_do_not_disturb

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

Beyond the annotations (write, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the non-obvious behavioral protocol: a client-side confirmation prompt when available, otherwise a preview-plus-confirmToken two-step fallback that must not be reused. This is exactly the kind of interaction contract that annotations cannot express.

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, front-loaded with the action before the confirmation mechanics. The second sentence is dense and packs several clauses, but every clause carries necessary protocol information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the write semantics and the full confirmation/token lifecycle, plus a pointer to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. Return-shape detail is absent but the confirmation-required response is described, leaving only minor gaps.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema, including the confirmToken's phase-1 origin and single-use rule. The description echoes the two-step flow but adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource (switch Do Not Disturb on or off) for a specific device, and clarifies the DND/quiet-mode synonym. It implicitly separates itself from the read sibling alexa_get_do_not_disturb via the on/off switch semantics, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the confirmation flow but gives no guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as alexa_get_do_not_disturb or device-mode tools. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated as a routing rule.

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