tunnel_destroy

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations by disclosing what is destroyed (in-memory only, not persisted), that it bypasses reads and TTL, and the exact success ('Destroyed ID') and failure (not-found) outcomes.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then when/when-not, then side effects, then return values. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still supplies the return contract and error behavior, and the mutation scope is clear despite rich annotations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single `id` parameter, so the schema already carries the contract. The description only adds the state semantics of an unknown/already-gone ID, which is a minor increment over baseline.

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 and resource ('Immediately remove a tunnel from memory') with scope qualifiers ('regardless of remaining reads or TTL'), which cleanly separates it from tunnel_read, tunnel_list, and tunnel_create.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger case (cancelling before delivery, wrong recipient, rotated secret) and the negative case (prefer letting `maxReads`/TTL handle normal cleanup). The alternative-to-this-tool decision is fully spelled out.

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