Stop tunnel

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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context by naming the exact effect ('revoking its public URL') and reaffirming idempotency. No hidden side effects like authentication requirements are mentioned, but none are implied by the tool's simple purpose.

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 two short sentences with no filler. Every clause serves a purpose: the action, the target specification, the effect, and idempotency.

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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what is stopped, how it is identified, what the result is, and that repeated calls are safe. No additional context is required.

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?

Both schema parameters are described clearly ('Local port of the tunnel to stop' and 'Link label ... alternative to port'). The description also reinforces the logical OR relationship between port and label. No constraints or defaults are given, but the schema coverage is complete and the semantics are understandable.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'stop' and the resource 'tunnel', and specifies the scope ('for a local port or link label') and the consequence ('revoking its public URL'). This unambiguous purpose distinguishes it from related tools like stop_all_tunnels.

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 implies when to use it: to stop a specific tunnel by port or label. It also notes idempotency, which guides repeated calls. It does not explicitly contrast with stop_all_tunnels or tunnel_status, but the targeted scope is clear enough.

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