kick_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses all critical behaviors: it is 'DESTRUCTIVE,' notes 'reconnection can take ~10 min,' and states the tool 'refuses unless confirm=true.' This goes beyond mere functionality to set accurate expectations for the agent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE warning. Every sentence carries essential information: purpose, use case, consequence, and parameter guidance. No waste or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how long reconnection takes, the confirmation requirement, and parameter constraints. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully. It explains 'service' as 'a site alias | service_id' and adds the crucial constraint 'never all.' It also clarifies the 'confirm' parameter by indicating it must be true for the action to proceed, which the schema only vaguely defaults to false.

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 tool's action: 'drop the service's session at AussieBB.' It uses a specific verb ('drop') and resource ('service's session'), and the context (swapping modem/router) distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_connection or ntd_reset.

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?

Usage is explicitly tied to a scenario: 'use when swapping the modem/router.' It also provides a necessary precondition: 'get the user's explicit approval first.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the parameter constraint 'never all'.

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