browser_tab_close

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: closing the connected tab re-connects to whichever tab becomes active, which matters for subsequent tool calls. It does not, however, mention irreversibility or what happens when no tab remains.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the default and the side effect front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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, non-read-only tool with a clear default and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is nearly complete. It stops short of covering edge cases such as closing the last remaining tab or the result of the operation.

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 single tabId parameter is documented as coming from browser_tab_list, so the schema carries the load. The description only clarifies the no-argument default, which adds marginal value over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Close) and resource (a tab), and immediately clarifies the default target ('the connected one'), which distinguishes it from browser_tab_new and browser_tab_select. An agent can identify the operation without consulting the schema.

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 default behavior implies when the tool is useful (closing the currently connected tab vs. a specific tabId), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives such as browser_tab_select. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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