forget_client

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds concrete consequences: deletes stored client identity and history, and the client can reappear on reconnect. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining what is destroyed and the reconnection effect.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a compact destructive warning and sibling routing, with only a short Args block. The Args block duplicates the schema, which prevents a 5, but nothing is wordy or off-topic.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description covers what is deleted, whether the client returns, how to choose alternatives, and all parameter roles. No output schema is needed for an action like this.

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 schema already documents mac, site, and device. The description's Args block restates those descriptions without adding new semantics or examples, keeping this at the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-resource statement: 'Remove a client from the controller's known-clients list.' The description clearly delimits the operation against nearby siblings by naming kick_client and block_client as the alternatives for related but different actions.

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?

Explicitly labels the operation destructive and states when to prefer alternatives: kick_client for dropping a session without deletion, block_client for persistent denial. An agent gets direct decision rules rather than having to infer them.

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