close_tunnel

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

Discloses that 'The public URL stops working immediately', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it doesn't mention irreversibility or potential side effects. Still, it provides important context beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with core action, then effect, then usage context, then sibling reference. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and usage hints. Could explicitly mention that the action is irreversible or idempotent, but overall it's sufficient.

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 'by its ID' and 'use list_tunnels to find the tunnel_id', but doesn't add significant new meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Force-close a specific tunnel by its ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tunnel and list_tunnels by providing usage context and referencing list_tunnels for finding the ID.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a tunnel is no longer needed or public access must be revoked right away' with examples (webhook test, demo). Also directly recommends an alternative tool 'Use list_tunnels to find the tunnel_id'.

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