Close Chrome tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavior: case-insensitive substring matching, and via the index parameter description, that multiple matches cause the tool to list indices and titles for a retry. It does not disclose what happens on zero matches, but the core matching and disambiguation behavior is well covered.

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, precise sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and matching rule. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter tool with a detailed input schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides the query semantics, the optional index disambiguation flow, and enough context to call the tool. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention of error/no-match behavior, but this does not undermine the core callability.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that matching is case-insensitive and substring-based, which is not stated in the query parameter's own description. The optional index parameter is already richly described in the schema.

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 ('Close'), a specific resource ('Chrome tab'), and the selection criterion (title matches given text via case-insensitive substring match). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools like open_chrome_tab, focus_chrome_tab, and list_chrome_tabs by its verb and matching semantics.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you want to close a Chrome tab and know part of its title. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention using list_chrome_tabs to discover tab titles, so there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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