alexa_stop

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the mandatory two-step confirmation, the preview + confirmToken fallback for clients without elicitation, the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference, and the rule that confirmToken must never be reused or invented. That is exactly the behavioral context needed for a destructive, open-world operation.

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-loaded with purpose, then scope, then the confirmation flow in a logical order; every clause carries information. The single dense final sentence packs multiple confirmToken constraints, though all are load-bearing.

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 still supplies the key runtime semantics an agent needs: dual confirmation paths, the confirmToken handshake, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE dependency. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and per-parameter descriptions are already rich, so baseline would be 3. The description adds the either/or relationship between 'device' and 'allDevices' and frames confirmToken as the token from this same tool's phase-1 response, which sharpens how the params relate rather than merely restating them.

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?

Uses a specific verb (stop) plus the full set of affected resources (music, alarm, timer, speech) and anchors it to the familiar 'Alexa, stop' idiom. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like alexa_cancel_alarm_reminder or alexa_playback without opening any 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?

Clearly states the two scoping modes ('Pass a device, or allDevices to stop every device on the account') and the confirmation workflow. It gives solid when/how guidance but never names an alternative sibling (e.g. cancelling a specific alarm vs. a blanket stop), so the choice among cancel/stop tools is left to inference.

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