ssh_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action ('Disconnect') but does not explain side effects such as whether the connection becomes invalid, whether any associated resources are cleaned up, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the connection ID is invalid. For a state-changing operation, this level of disclosure is insufficient.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does without excess words. Every word earns its place, and the critical constraint ('existing') is included.

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 is simple, with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it, but it omits behavioral details such as success/failure indicators, error conditions, and what state change the caller should expect. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a slightly richer description would be needed for full completeness.

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 already fully documents the only parameter with a clear description: 'The connection ID returned by ssh_connect.' This gives the agent provenance for the parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Disconnect') and a clear resource ('SSH connection'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from every sibling tool by naming the exact lifecycle operation, with no ambiguity about whether it connects, executes, or transfers files.

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 phrase 'existing SSH connection' clearly implies a prerequisite: the connection must already have been established, presumably via ssh_connect. It also implies the appropriate context is when an open connection should be terminated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's role is obvious in the sibling set, so no further routing is needed.

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