ssh_tunnel_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation only affects local tunnel state, is irreversible, and that the server option reports how many tunnels were closed. This is adequate behavioral transparency.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and efficiently explains parameter usage and side effects.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers behavior, parameter selection, side effects, and error condition (neither supplied). It is complete.

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%, so description adds extra value by explaining the behavioral difference between tunnelId and server (single close vs. batch close with count). This goes beyond the schema's concise descriptors.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Tears down') and resource ('active SSH tunnels'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_tunnel_create and ssh_tunnel_list by specifying it is for closing tunnels.

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 explicit guidance on parameter usage: exactly one of tunnelId or server must be supplied, and explains the behavior of each. While it doesn't directly contrast with alternatives like ssh_session_close, the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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