close_firefox_tabs

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

The description discloses the postcondition behavior: it closes the specified tabs and verifies that Firefox no longer reports the tabs. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it does not cover failure handling, partial failures, or the exact shape of the verification result.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler or repetition. It packs the target, the method of identification, and the post-condition verification into minimal wording, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 simple batch-close tool, the description covers the operation, the input basis, and the verification behavior. The schema supplies the confirmation and irreversibility details. Its main weakness is not describing the return value or error behavior, but this is acceptable given the narrative 'verify that Firefox no longer reports them' strongly implies a success-oriented check.

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 both parameters (tabIds and confirmClose) already have clear, descriptive schema documentation. The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing 'exactly identified' and tabId-based selection, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action with a direct verb ('Close'), identifies the resource ('Firefox tabs'), and adds the exact targeting mechanism ('by their tabId'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling close_firefox_tab_group by emphasizing batch closure of individually identified tabs rather than a group.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when there is a batch of exactly identified tab IDs to close. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools for closing tab groups or individual tabs.

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