ssh_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the session is closed and resources are freed, which is the key side effect. However, it does not mention what happens if the session_id is invalid, whether repeated calls are safe, or whether running commands are terminated.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Close an SSH session') and adds the resource-freeing effect without wasted words.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and effect. But without annotations, some context is missing—such as error handling, idempotency, and the relationship to ssh_connect or ssh_list_sessions for obtaining the session_id.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions session_id or how to obtain it. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer that session_id identifies the session to close.

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 uses a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('SSH session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_connect, ssh_exec, and ssh_list_sessions. There is no ambiguity about the action performed.

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 clear context: this tool closes an SSH session and frees resources. Although it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the action is straightforward and the intended usage is unmistakable given the sibling tool set.

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