reconnect_client

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Force' which implies a disruptive action, but it does not state whether the disconnect interrupts active traffic, requires special permissions, or has lasting effects. This is minimal behavioral information, not a serious omission, but still thin for a mutation-style tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action is stated first, followed by short, scannable parameter explanations. There is no wasted prose or redundant restating of the schema. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter action with an output schema present, the description covers the tool's purpose and every parameter's format and source. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but those are partially covered by the behavioral transparency gap rather than a missing parameter detail. Overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 provides only bare string types with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining host formats (name, ID, or MAC:numericId), site name/ID, and the requirement that client_id come from the id field of list_clients. This is exactly the kind of semantic addition the schema lacks.

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 action: 'Force a client to reconnect on a site.' This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from generic sibling actions like execute_client_action or block_client. The purpose is unambiguous even without explicit sibling contrast.

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 gives useful parameter sourcing guidance by pointing to list_clients for client_id, but it never explains when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison with related tools such as execute_client_action, block_client, or get_client_link_diagnostics, leaving the selection rationale to inference.

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