unifi_kick_client

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 that the tool force-disconnects a client and that the client will attempt to reconnect immediately, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects or dependencies (e.g., whether the client must be currently connected).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: first states the action and its effect, second clarifies the required parameter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and the required parameter. However, it omits any explanation of the optional 'site_id' parameter, and there is no mention of return values or error conditions. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for the 'mac' parameter by providing an example format ('aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff'), but it does not describe the 'site_id' parameter, which is optional but lacks explanation. Baseline for 0% coverage is low; partial compensation earns a 3.

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 specific verb 'force-disconnect (kick)' and the resource 'wireless client by MAC address'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'unifi_block_client' (which prevents reconnection) and 'unifi_client_action' (generic action).

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 mentions that the client will attempt to reconnect immediately, implying a temporary disconnect scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., blocking vs. kicking) or provide guidance on prerequisites or consequences.

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