client_action

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, indicating this tool modifies state and is not idempotent. The description reinforces this by specifying 'grants' and 'revokes', which are mutating actions. However, it does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey, such as potential side effects or required 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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary information. It front-loads the purpose and then details the actions. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple action-oriented nature (2 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the core functionality. It could briefly mention that the client must be connected or that the actions are specific to hotspot guests, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well-described: clientId as a UUID from list_clients, and action as an enum with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it executes hotspot guest access actions on a connected client. It explicitly names the two enum values (AUTHORIZE_GUEST_ACCESS and UNAUTHORIZE_GUEST_ACCESS) and explains their effects ('grants guest WiFi access', 'revokes it'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'manage_client' which likely handle broader client management.

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 implies usage context (hotspot guest access) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., client must be connected). Sibling tools like 'manage_client' are not contrasted.

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