Close SSH Tunnel

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

The description only says 'closes' without detailing behavioral aspects like idempotency (though annotation indicates idempotentHint=true), what happens if the tunnel doesn't exist, or if it requires specific permissions. With annotations present, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral context beyond the minimal state change.

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 extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient for a simple action. However, it could include a brief sentence on idempotency or parameters without becoming verbose. Still, it's well-suited for the purpose.

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 (1 param, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It omits useful context like error conditions, idempotency behavior, and relationship to sibling tools like 'tunnel_list'. The output schema is present but not referenced, so the description doesn't leverage it to reduce completeness burden.

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 single parameter 'tunnelId' is described only as 'Tunnel identifier' in the schema, and the description adds no further meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify the identifier format or origins.

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 action ('closes') and the resource ('active tunnel'), directly reflecting the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tunnel_list' or 'tunnel_local_forward' which have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as checking tunnel status first with 'tunnel_list' or prerequisites like the tunnel must be active. It does not mention error handling or typical usage context.

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