ssh_tunnel_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key destructive gotcha—omitting the argument closes all tunnels. But it does not mention reversibility, error handling, or whether an explicit ID must reference an existing tunnel. Still, the main risk is covered.

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?

Two short clauses with zero filler. The core action is stated first and the behavior modifier is appended right after, making it immediately scannable and perfectly sized for its 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?

For a one-parameter utility tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantic. It could also briefly mention that nothing is returned or that non-existent tunnel IDs yield an error, but the current information is sufficient for straightforward invocation.

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 description explicitly explains the meaningful behavior of the only parameter: not providing it closes all tunnels. This adds semantics beyond the bare schema, where tunnel_id merely has a null default. For a 0% schema coverage scenario, this compensates well.

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 ('закрыть' / close) and resource ('туннель' / tunnel), and the sibling context (ssh_tunnel_open) makes the purpose unmistakable. It is not a tautology and clearly differentiates from related SSH tools.

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 purpose itself implies when to use it, and it does give an important operational rule about omitting the argument. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over ssh_disconnect or other siblings, nor does it provide conditions/exclusions for using it.

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