kick_client

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

The description clearly discloses the behavioral impact: it is a mutating operation that drops the active session, has no persistent block, and allows the client to re-associate. This goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explaining what actually happens at the session level and what does not happen, giving the agent a clear safety and side-effect picture.

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-line summary, a short behavioral explanation with sibling routing, and a clean Args list. No sentence is wasted, and the most important information is front-loaded. It earns every line it uses.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effects, its non-persistence, and the relevant alternatives. The idempotentHint annotation covers idempotency, and the schema covers parameter formats. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema descriptions rather than adding new meaning. It is minimal and accurate, but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Force-disconnect a client.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools block_client/unblock_client and forget_client by stating that it drops the active session without a persistent block. An agent can confidently identify what this tool does and how it differs from related 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?

The description explicitly names alternatives and the conditions for choosing them: 'Use block_client/unblock_client for a lasting block, or forget_client to remove the client record entirely.' This directly answers when to use this tool versus its siblings and leaves no ambiguity about the temporary nature of the action.

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