alexa_set_volume

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotence/safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the user-confirmation requirement, the elicitation-vs-token fallback, and the preview-plus-confirmToken response of phase 1. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs before calling a write 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?

Two compact sentences: the core action is front-loaded and the confirmation mechanics follow. The parenthetical reference to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is slightly indirect, but no sentence is wasted.

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 the essential operational unknowns: confirmation gating, the token fallback, and the phase-1 preview response. What remains (e.g., failure handling, device-not-found behavior) is minor and largely inferable.

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 both required params (device, volume) and the confirmToken are already fully documented in the schema, including the token's "never on first call" rule. The description reinforces the range and token flow but adds little beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb+resource ("Set the speaker volume") and scopes it with a range (0–100) and target ("of an Alexa device"). It is immediately distinguishable from read-side siblings like alexa_list_volumes, but it never names a sibling tool, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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 clearly tells the agent how invocation is gated (confirm first, or two-step token flow), which is useful context. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over adjacent tools (e.g., alexa_set_equalizer or alexa_list_volumes); selection guidance is only implied.

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