alexa_set_vacation_mode

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description goes far beyond them: it discloses that turning ON saves each thermostat's mode and setpoints before overwriting them, that OFF restores exactly what was saved, that OFF thermostats stay OFF, that a repeat ON is refused, and that a confirmation preview/confirmToken flow exists. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each carry real information about side effects and confirmation. It is dense and contains a long parenthetical, but given the emulation and two-phase confirmation complexity the length is largely justified.

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 tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers side effects, reversibility, idempotency, defaults, targeting, and the full confirmation protocol, leaving no material gap an agent would need before invoking it.

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 all five parameters including defaults and the confirmToken protocol. The description largely restates the same defaults (55/85 degrees, all thermostats) and adds little parameter detail the schema lacks, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Turn thermostat vacation mode (away mode) on or off') and clarifies the emulation rationale, which separates it from siblings like alexa_set_thermostat and alexa_set_device_mode. An agent can identify exactly what this tool 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?

It explains the context (no native vacation mode, so this emulates one) and the on/off semantics with defaults, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g. alexa_set_thermostat) an agent might fall back to, so it stops 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.