cvcue_disconnect_client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the operation is forced, that the effect is non-permanent ('the client may reconnect'), and that two preconditions must be satisfied before the call will succeed. It does not state what happens on failure (e.g., unknown MAC, writes disabled), whether the disconnect is immediate versus scheduled, or what a successful response contains.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and its reversibility stated first and the hard prerequisites second. Every clause earns its place and an agent can parse the gating conditions in a single pass.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is recoverable, and the write/confirm gates. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about the return signal or failure modes, which matters more here because no annotations and no output schema exist to fill that in.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema, and the description only reinforces the confirm=true requirement rather than adding new meaning. No format hint for mac_address (colon-separated vs hyphenated) is offered beyond the schema. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Force-disconnect (deauthenticate) a wireless client,' which cannot be confused with any read-oriented sibling such as cvcue_list_clients or cvcue_find_client. The parenthetical synonym removes ambiguity about what 'disconnect' means. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly positions itself against the other mutating siblings (cvcue_reboot_aps, cvcue_delete_ssid) or against a troubleshooting-first workflow.

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 second sentence gives gating prerequisites (CVCUE_ENABLE_WRITES=true, confirm=true), which is genuine when-to-use-possible context. However, there is no guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus diagnosing first with cvcue_troubleshoot_client or cvcue_client_events, and no when-not-to-use case. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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