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 of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a destructive action ('Block'), it doesn't specify whether this is permanent or temporary, what permissions are required, whether it affects other network services, or what the expected outcome looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'blocking' entails operationally, what happens to the client, whether the action is reversible, or what confirmation/response to expect. More context is needed given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'mac' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Block') and target ('client from accessing the network'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'disconnect_client' or 'unblock_client', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disconnect_client' or 'unblock_client'. The description states what it does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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