reconnectClient

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

The description states the forceful reconnect behavior, which adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not explain side effects such as dropping the current session or whether the client will automatically reconnect or need assistance.

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 one concise sentence with no filler words or repetition. It communicates the essential action and identifying parameter immediately.

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 two-parameter action, the description is minimally viable: it states the operation and the identifying parameter. Yet it lacks siteId semantics, usage context, and any clarification of destructive consequences beyond what annotations already signal.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies clientMac by saying 'by its MAC address', but it does not explain siteId at all, leaving that parameter's meaning and necessity unclear.

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 ('Force') with a clear resource ('a client') and action ('reconnect to the network by its MAC address'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blockClient and updateClient.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blockClient, unblockClient, or updateClient. The scenario is implied, but no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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