browser_switch_tab

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the operation as destructive, and the description does not contradict it. It adds little beyond stating the state change of switching tabs; there is no detail on side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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 whole description is one short sentence that immediately states the action and the source of the id. There is no filler, and the essential instruction is front-loaded.

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 tool with a single required string parameter, no output schema, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the operation and where the id comes from. It does not cover invalid-id behavior or the prerequisite that a browser session exists, but those are minor gaps at this complexity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the only place that explains the id parameter. It states the id is a tab id and that it comes from browser_status, which is meaningful and actionable, though it does not spell out format or existence requirements.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switch') and identifies the resource ('this MCP Chrome') and the id source ('from browser_status'). It clearly describes selecting an existing tab, which differentiates it from sibling tools like browser_new_tab and browser_close_tab.

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?

It implies the workflow of calling browser_status first to obtain the tab id, but it never says when to prefer this over browser_new_tab or browser_close_tab, nor does it provide exclusions. The usage context is present only implicitly, not explicitly.

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