alexa_set_equalizer

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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ('bands you leave out keep their current value'), the confirmation requirement, the preview+confirmToken fallback, and the constraint that the token must never be reused or invented. This is exactly the kind of mutation-safety context the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) 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 action and range in the first sentence, then the confirmation mechanics. Dense but every clause earns its place; the parenthetical reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is a slight compaction rather than padding.

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, this covers everything an agent needs: the target, the band range, partial-update behavior, and the full confirmation handshake including the failure mode of a client without elicitation.

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. The description adds the partial-update rule (omitted bands retain current value), which is not stated anywhere in the schema and materially changes how the agent should fill the optional parameters.

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) and resource (an Echo speaker or soundbar's equalizer), names the exact fields (bass, mid, treble) and their range, and is trivially distinguishable from the sibling alexa_get_equalizer by the verb 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?

Clearly explains how to invoke the tool, including the confirmation protocol and the two-step fallback, which is the critical usage context. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or point at alternative siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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