vsz_block_client

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., admin privileges), whether the block is persistent, whether the client is also disconnected, or the possibility of reversal via unblock_client. The term 'blacklist' implies permanence but is not explicit.

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?

The description is appropriately short, leading with a one-line purpose and then listing parameters. The 'Args:' block adds necessary semantic information. It is not verbose, though the indentation and repetition of parameter names could be slightly tighter, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The tool is simple (3 parameters, no enums) and has an output schema, so basic invocation is possible. However, the absence of annotations and lack of details about side effects, prerequisites, or relationship to sibling tools leave gaps. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent to understand all implications of the operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: host (vSZ controller IP/hostname), mac (client MAC address), and description (reason). This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format examples like MAC address formatting.

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 starts with a clear action verb and resource: 'Block (blacklist) a wireless client by MAC address.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like unblock_client or disconnect_client by using the term 'blacklist'. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a permanent block versus a temporary disconnect, nor does it reference the reverse operation (unblock_client). The description simply states the action without contextual usage rules.

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