unifi_reconnect_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('force a reconnect') but does not disclose potential side effects such as a brief network interruption, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens if the MAC is invalid. This is a mutation with no safety details.

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?

One concise sentence (12 words) with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Force' and clearly conveys the core action.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and parameter. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose the disruptive nature of forcing a reconnect, leaving an important gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It is minimally viable but not fully contextual.

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 a single required 'mac' property with no schema-level description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'by MAC address' provides minimal clarification that this parameter is the client's MAC, but it does not explain format (e.g., colon-separated) or validation rules, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 uses a specific verb 'force', names the resource 'client device', and specifies the action 'reconnect to the nearest access point by MAC address'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_reboot_device or unifi_block_client.

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 a use case (client connectivity issues) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like unifi_reboot_device or unifi_forget_client. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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