tunnel_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key side effects: host destroys relay + log, member leaves. However, it does not mention irreversibility, confirmation, or impact on other participants, leaving some behavioral traits unclear.

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 concise sentences with no redundant text. First sentence defines the two behaviors, second instructs on the parameter. Every word 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?

The description covers role-dependent behavior and parameter usage, but lacks information about return values (no output schema) and potential error conditions. Adequate but not thorough.

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 only parameter (summary) has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds that it is optional and encourages providing it, but does not specify format, constraints, or where it appears.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('closes', 'destroys', 'leaves') and distinguishes between two roles (host and member). It differentiates from sibling tools like tunnel_open, tunnel_join, etc., which involve different actions.

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 usage by role (host vs member) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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