Kick Out MQTT Client

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed ('Queued and in-flight messages for that session are lost') and that devices with auto-reconnect will return, forcing a fresh connection. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 compact: three sentences that each carry weight. It front-loads the [DESTRUCTIVE] warning, then explains the effect and the alternative tool. No unnecessary words are present.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description fully covers purpose, consequences, and usage context. It even mentions the sibling alternative (emqx_ban), making it self-contained for an agent deciding between tools.

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 100% with the clientid parameter fully documented ('Client id to disconnect. Call emqx_list_clients first to get an exact id.'). The description itself does not add parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 an MQTT client and clear its session.' It includes the consequence of losing queued/in-flight messages and contrasts with emqx_ban ('use emqx_ban to keep a client out'), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'use emqx_ban to keep a client out' clarifies when to use banning instead of kicking. The schema adds a prerequisite: 'Call emqx_list_clients first to get an exact id.' This directly tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter.

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