block_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and a one-line effect statement ('Block a client device from the network') is all it offers. It does not disclose whether the block persists across reboots, whether it immediately disconnects an active client, or whether it can be reversed via unblock_client. For a network-altering mutation, these gaps leave the agent guessing about side effects.

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 a single eight-word sentence with no filler, redundancy, or repetition of structured data. The verb is front-loaded, so an agent immediately knows the action before reading the parameter details.

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 one-parameter tool this is close to minimally viable: the agent knows the action and the required input. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not cover post-call behavior such as confirmation, error conditions (e.g., unknown MAC), or reversibility. The gaps are notable but not crippling for such a simple tool.

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%, so the mac parameter is already documented as 'MAC address of the client to block.' The description adds no additional parameter context, such as MAC format expectations (colons vs dashes) or validation rules. Per the rubric, the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden, and that is exactly the case here.

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 ('Block') with a clear resource ('a client device') and scope ('from the network'), making the core action unambiguous. It reads distinctly from the many read-oriented siblings like list_clients and get_client_details. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from block_restricted_youtube, whose narrower scope must be inferred from its name rather than contrasted here.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as block_restricted_youtube, unblock_client, or reconnect_client. An agent must infer the use case solely from the verb and the file naming convention. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use notes.

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