ssh_tunnel_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the tunnel is killed vs detached, whether the local port is released, whether the call errors on an unknown id, or whether it is idempotent — all things an agent needs before retrying or chaining.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the id provenance tucked into a parenthetical. No filler and nothing to trim.

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 one-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers what is done and where the id comes from, which is the minimum viable. With zero annotations and no output schema, it should still say what happens on an unknown id or whether stopping is idempotent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' param is documented as 'Tunnel id to stop', so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by telling the agent where that id comes from (ssh_tunnel / ssh_tunnels), which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb (Stop) and resource (a port-forward tunnel) scoped by id. It also names the sibling tools (ssh_tunnel / ssh_tunnels) where the id originates, so an agent can place it in the tunnel lifecycle without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical '(from ssh_tunnel / ssh_tunnels)' tells the agent this is the teardown counterpart to tunnel creation, giving clear usage context. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., unknown/already-closed id) or what to do instead.

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