down_tunnel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the default behavior (only releases up_tunnel pin, returns remaining_holders), the effect of 'force=true' (drains pools, closes unconditionally), and the consequence for subsequent queries (recreates pools). This is comprehensive for a two-operation 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. It is concise without omitting important behavioral details.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description indirectly covers return behavior by mentioning 'remaining_holders'. It covers input, behavior, and side effects adequately for a simple mutation. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the return format (e.g., JSON object with remaining_holders).

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains that 'tunnel_id' is returned by 'up_tunnel' and elaborates on the 'force' parameter's conditional behavior. The description enriches the understanding of parameter usage.

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 identifies the action ('Close a tunnel'), the resource ('previously opened with up_tunnel'), and the key identifier ('tunnel_id'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'up_tunnel' by specifying it is the inverse operation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to close a tunnel) and contrasts with 'up_tunnel'. It also describes the default behavior versus the 'force=true' option. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or provide alternatives among siblings.

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