redis_kill_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility, priorState capture, that no undo is recorded, client reconnection behavior, and the refusal to kill its own connection even under dry_run. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the critical warning ('[WRITE][risk=medium]', 'IRREVERSIBLE'), followed by concise paragraphs and a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, side effects, safety measures, and edge-case refusal behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including using dry_run and avoiding self-kills.

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 explains each parameter in the Args block: 'client_id' (preferred), 'addr' (alternative), 'dry_run' (preview), and 'target' (default behavior). This goes beyond the schema's type/default info.

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 the action ('Disconnect') and the resource ('one redis client by id or addr'), with explicit scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redis_clients (listing) and redis_config_set (config) by focusing on the kill operation.

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 clear usage context, such as preferring client_id from redis_clients and the dry_run preview option. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or list exclusions (e.g., don't use on cluster-wide operations).

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