terminate_user_connections

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 the core behavior (disconnects all connections, forces offline) but omits details like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., the user can reconnect). This is acceptable for a simple action but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. It avoids fluff and is immediately scannable.

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 has a single simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description effectively covers what it does and why someone would use it, which is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly in context.

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?

The schema already describes 'userId' as 'The user ID to disconnect from all channels' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Disconnect') and resource ('all connections for a specific user'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle events, channels, presence, and authorization. It also states the expected outcome: forces the user offline across all channels.

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 clear use case ('useful for moderation or security') and implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but none of the siblings handle disconnecting user connections, so the guidance is adequate.

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