ssh_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the connection, sessions, and tunnels are closed, which is a destructive action, but it doesn't discuss side effects like termination of running commands, reversibility, or any permissions needed. No additional behavioral context such as idempotency or confirmation requirements is given.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word contributes to the meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter disconnect tool, the description covers the basic action but omits essential context for a mutating operation: there is no note about return values, errors, or whether it works when no connection exists. Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 schema's only parameter 'target' is completely undocumented in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what 'target' refers to (e.g., a server identifier, an optional IP, or a connection name), but it provides no meaning. The default null and string type offer no clue, so an agent cannot know how to fill this parameter correctly.

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 ('close') and a clear resource ('connection') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it closes 'together with its sessions and tunnels,' which differentiates it from ssh_shell_close and ssh_tunnel_close. It makes the scope of the operation unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ssh_shell_close or ssh_tunnel_close. It doesn't mention that this is the comprehensive disconnect or when a more targeted close might be appropriate. The use case is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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