wavexis_close_page

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

This is far stronger than the annotations alone. It explicitly says the operation is destructive and irreversible, explains that the session stays alive, and documents the exact JSON return shape with 'status' and 'closed' keys. An agent knows both the side effects and the observable response.

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 compact and well organized: purpose, usage context, side effects, and return value are each covered in a few short sentences. Every sentence carries necessary information, with no filler.

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 destructive tool with a simple input shape and an output schema, this description covers the critical behavioral contract thoroughly. The only notable gap is that it does not clarify how to choose between this and wavexis_close_tab, which is important given the sibling list.

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 prose explains that tab_id is optional and that omitting it closes the current page, which matches the schema. It does not add much semantic detail about session_id, but the schema already describes it as the active session ID from wavexis_session_open, so the minimum needed to invoke the tool correctly is available.

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 immediately identifies the action: 'Close a browser page/tab by target id' and clarifies the default behavior when no target is given. It is concrete and understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool wavexis_close_tab, which likely has a very similar purpose.

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 a clear use context: free resources while keeping the session active for other tabs. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the practical intent is clear enough for an agent to select the tool.

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