Switch tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that focus shifts, but says nothing about what happens if the tabId is stale or invalid, whether the containing window is raised, or whether the operation has any other side effects.

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?

A single four-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and containing no filler. Nothing is wasted and there is nothing further to trim.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action adequately. However, it omits failure behavior and any note about the resulting UI state, which are the only remaining gaps an agent would care about.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already documents tabId with its provenance ('from browser_list_tabs'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no constraints, ranges, or format notes beyond what the schema provides.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Activate (focus)') with a specific resource ('the given browser tab'), so an agent immediately knows this changes which tab is active rather than cloning or closing one. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like browser_close_tab or browser_list_tabs, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to obtain a valid tabId, and no statement of alternatives such as browser_list_tabs for discovery or browser_close_tab for removal. The intended usage (after a tab is listed) is only implied by the tool name and is left entirely to inference.

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