vsz_disconnect_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool disconnects/deauthenticates a client, but does not mention permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects on the client's session. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the action. The 'Requires both' sentence adds essential context, and the Args section is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. No wasted words.

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 output schema present, return values need not be described. However, the description omits important operational context such as what happens after disconnection, whether reconnection is possible, and error conditions. It is minimally viable for invoking the tool but incomplete for understanding its full impact.

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 fully compensates. It explains each parameter: host (vSZ controller IP/hostname), client_mac, and ap_mac (AP the client is associated with), adding meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Disconnect (deauthenticate) a wireless client.' This distinguishes it from related tools like block/unblock, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description provides a key prerequisite: 'Requires both the client MAC and the AP MAC it is connected to.' This implies the context of use but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like vsz_block_client.

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