block_client

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

Because no annotations are present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Block' implies a mutation, but the description does not state consequences (e.g., loss of network access, whether existing sessions are terminated) or any permission requirements. The parameter format details are helpful but do not cover behavioral transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. Parameter explanations are presented in a compact, scannable format with no unnecessary repetition or filler. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the critical source for client_id, but with no annotations it omits behavioral and safety context such as reversibility, impact on client access, or required permissions. For a mutation tool of this simplicity, this is a moderate gap, making the definition minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains all three parameters: host (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), site (name or ID), and client_id (required, obtainable from list_clients). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string types in the schema.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Block a client on a site.' This is unambiguous about the action and target. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling unblock_client or execute_client_action, so differentiation relies on the name, slightly lowering the 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?

The description provides a prerequisite (obtain client_id from list_clients) but does not explain when to use block_client versus unblock_client or other client-action tools. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of alternatives, leaving the selection logic to inference.

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