Stop tunnel

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the public URL is revoked and that there is no in-place reconfiguration, which is valuable beyond what annotations express. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff: it front-loads the action, consequence, and idempotency, then adds a single practical usage note about reconfiguration. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with strong annotations, the description covers the action, idempotency, effect on the URL, and reconfiguration workflow. The only minor gap is that both parameters are optional in the schema, while the description implies at least one must be provided; a short note on what happens if neither is given would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (port and label) at 100% coverage. The description only restates the schema's 'alternative to port' concept through 'for a local port or link label', which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Stop (tear down)') and resource ('the tunnel for a local port or link label'), along with the key consequence of revoking its public URL. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like stop_all_tunnels or stop_remote by scoping to a single tunnel. The idempotent note adds further precision.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: to reconfigure a live tunnel, stop it here and then call serve with new settings. It positions this tool as the stopping step and names serve as the follow-up alternative. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer stop_all_tunnels over this tool, but the usage instruction is clear enough.

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