group-browser-tabs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether tabs leave their current position or window, whether the group persists across sessions, what happens to already-grouped tabs, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine side effects, parameter behavior, or expected results from this one line.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. tabIds, groupColor (a 9-value enum), groupTitle, and isCollapsed are all undocumented; the vague reference to a 'new tab group' hints at groupTitle/groupColor but adds no real meaning.

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 plus resource: 'Organize opened browser tabs in a new tab group.' The phrase 'new tab group' signals the creation of a grouping, which loosely separates it from reorder-browser-tabs or close-browser-tabs, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as reorder-browser-tabs. The agent is left to infer that this is the tool for grouping, with no rules about when grouping is preferable.

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