ssh_interactive_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'Kill and remove' implies destructive irreversible behavior on the session, but it doesn't state whether this affects any running process on the remote host, whether it deletes resources, or what happens to in-flight input/output. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the behavioral disclosure is thin.

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?

A single, compact sentence that states the action, the resource, and the pairing with the companion tool. Zero wasted words; every element earns its place.

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 single-parameter destructive close operation, the description is reasonably complete. However, it would benefit from clarifying the difference from ssh_close and ssh_exec_kill siblings, and noting whether killing the session has side effects on remote processes. Adequate minimum for a simple tool, but could add a line distinguishing it from the non-interactive close path.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id), and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the parameter is self-explanatory—an identifier for the session to close—so the schema's name already conveys its meaning. The description doesn't clarify where to obtain session_id (e.g., from ssh_interactive_exec return or ssh_interactive_list), though the sibling tool names hint at this. Adequate but not enriched.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Kill and remove an interactive SSH session'). It explicitly references the companion tool ssh_interactive_exec, distinguishing it from the general ssh_close sibling and the exec_kill tool. Slightly less than 5 because it doesn't specify what 'close' produces or confirm the session is actually terminated vs merely detached.

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 states it applies specifically to sessions 'started with ssh_interactive_exec', which gives clear context and implies it pairs with that tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., vs ssh_exec_kill for non-interactive execs), but the reference to the paired tool provides reasonable usage direction.

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