Close Own Tabs

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

Annotations already mark this destructive, and the description adds significant scoping context: user tabs are untouched, stale tabs from dead sessions are excluded by default, and live agent tabs are never affected. This clearly defines the boundaries of the destructive action and prevents accidental data loss beyond the agent's own tabs.

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 sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the stale-tab exception is placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and directly informs invocation.

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 single-optional-parameter cleanup tool, the description covers the action, the ownership boundary, the stale-tab behavior, and points to arc_status for relevant status. No output schema exists, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 describes include_stale fully, including its default value and effect. The description mentions include_stale only in passing, matching the schema without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Close every tab this agent opened.' It precisely scopes the tool to tabs owned by this agent and distinguishes it from close_tab and user-tab operations. The mention of 'leaving the user's tabs alone' removes ambiguity about which tabs are affected.

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 intended cleanup use clear: close all agent-opened tabs, not user tabs. It also gives explicit guidance for include_stale, noting stale tabs are left alone unless the flag is set. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like close_tab, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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