ssh_session_close

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses destruction of session state, that remote files are not deleted, that 'all' closes every session while ignoring individual errors, and that the pooled underlying connection is retained. This is far beyond minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.

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?

Every sentence adds a distinct, valuable fact: the core termination behavior, the destructive scope, the special 'all' semantics, and the pooled-connection nuance. There is no filler, and the most important information appears first.

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 destructive action with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: required input format, edge cases ('all'), side effects, and what it does not affect. The description is self-sufficient even though no return-value details are provided.

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 already covers the single parameter at 100%, including the special 'all' value. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema, such as the fact that 'all' ignores individual close errors and that the session ID becomes unusable afterward.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it terminates an SSH session by session ID, with details about writing exit, discarding history/context, and invalidating the ID. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_session_start, ssh_session_send, and ssh_session_list.

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 makes the tool's function obvious, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The use case is strongly implied—closing sessions started by ssh_session_start—but the description does not spell out the relationship with sibling tools.

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