clash.runtime.close_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the confirmation requirement and the limitation of not supporting bulk close. However, it does not discuss potential destructive consequences or authorization needs, leaving some transparency gaps.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every phrase adds value: action, scope, limitation, and requirement. No redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (close a connection by ID), the description covers core aspects: what, how, constraint. No output schema exists, so return values aren't needed. Slight missing detail on expected behavior after close (e.g., success/failure), but still largely adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., 'Light confirmation required' hints at confirmed, but doesn't elaborate). No parameter-specific guidance.

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 explicitly states 'Close a specific connection by ID,' specifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes from the unsupported batch close operation, giving clear scope.

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 tells when to use (specific connection) and mentions what is not supported (closing all connections). It also notes 'Light confirmation required,' guiding the agent to set confirmed=true. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives for bulk close.

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