browser_close

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-state destructiveness. It adds the behavioral detail of marking the closure in a registry, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't explain what the registry is, whether unsaved state is lost, or if there is any confirmation. The description provides some added context but not extensive behavioral disclosure.

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 of eight words, front-loaded with the action ('Close this MCP Chrome') and followed by a concise side effect. Every word contributes; there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with only a destructiveHint annotation, the description explains what it does and a side effect. It doesn't describe the return value, but no output schema exists, so that's not required. It could be slightly more explicit about the scope (e.g., that it closes all tabs), but the sibling tool browser_close_tab makes that distinction clear. Overall it's reasonably complete.

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 tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100% with an empty properties object). Since there are no parameters, the description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description's lack of parameter discussion 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 verb ('Close'), resource ('this MCP Chrome'), and a side effect ('mark it closed in the registry'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like browser_close_tab (closing a tab) and browser_reap (reaping processes). The use of 'this' indicates the managed browser instance, making the intent unambiguous.

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 implies usage for shutting down the entire MCP browser instance, but does not explicitly contrast with browser_close_tab or other sibling tools. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name and tool set.

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