blockClient

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral consequence of denying network access. However, it does not disclose details such as whether blocking disconnects an active session, whether it is reversible, or whether siteId is required for multi-site environments. The description is consistent with destructiveHint but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then gives the mechanism and effect. No filler or redundant restatement; every part contributes useful information.

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 simple blocking action, the description covers the core operating intent and the required parameter's meaning. Still, it omits the role of siteId, does not mention that unblockClient is the inverse operation, and gives no indication of what happens to an already-connected device. These gaps matter for a destructive tool with no output schema.

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 clarifies that clientMac is a MAC address, but it says nothing about siteId, leaving an optional-but-unexplained parameter. An agent would not know whether siteId scopes the operation or is needed in certain deployments.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Block') with a clear resource ('a client device'), the exact identifier ('MAC address'), and the consequence ('preventing it from accessing the network'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like unblockClient, updateClient, and listClients.

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 states the action but gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention unblockClient as the inverse, nor does it describe prerequisites or situations where blocking might be inappropriate. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and ordinary meaning of 'block'.

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