rport_delete_tunnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is to close an active tunnel, but it does not disclose consequences such as the tunnel being terminated, whether the action is irreversible, what happens if the tunnel is already closed, or any permission/authorization requirements. For a mutating operation, this is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the parameter requirements are stated compactly. Every word contributes to understanding how to invoke the tool.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and identifies the source and format of tunnel_id. However, since there are no annotations and no output schema, it would be stronger if it mentioned the effect of closing the tunnel, possible error conditions, or confirmation of success. The essentials are present, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful meaning by explaining that tunnel_id can be a numeric ID or UUID returned by create or list. However, client_id receives no additional explanation beyond its name, and no format or lookup guidance is given for it. The description partially compensates but is not thorough.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Cierra' (closes) and identifies the resource as 'un túnel activo' (an active tunnel). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rport_create_tunnel, which creates, and rport_list_tunnels, which lists.

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 explicitly states the required inputs (client_id and tunnel_id) and tells the agent where tunnel_id comes from: 'el id numérico o UUID que devolvió create o list'. This gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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