block_client

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

The description discloses that this is a mutating operation, applies immediately, and persists in the controller's firewall/blocklist. This goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explaining the real-world effect and durability of the action, though it does not cover failure modes or permissions.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short behavioral note, explicit alternative guidance, and a clean Args list. Every sentence provides useful information, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core behavioral context: immediate effect, persistence, and reversal path. It could additionally clarify success/failure response behavior, but the essential information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is present.

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%, and the Args section in the description essentially repeats the schema descriptions without adding new semantic detail. Because the schema already fully documents mac, site, and device, the description adds no meaningful parameter meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 opens with a specific action, target, and mechanism: 'Block a client from accessing the network by MAC address.' It clearly identifies the resource and differentiates the tool from related siblings by naming unblock_client and kick_client as alternatives.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: use unblock_client to restore access, and kick_client to drop a connection without a persistent block. This gives an agent clear decision criteria without needing to inspect other tool definitions.

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