close_window

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 disclose a real behavioral constraint that IDs are profile-local and never reusable across profiles, which is valuable. However, for a destructive close operation it never states irreversibility or the fate of child tabs, leaving the primary risk unaddressed.

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 sentences, no filler, action stated first and the prerequisite constraint second. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and parameter prerequisites are covered. The gap is behavioral: an unannotated destructive mutation should state what is destroyed and whether it can be undone.

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 coverage is only 50% – profile_id has no description in the schema – and the description fills exactly that hole by declaring it required and pointing to profiles_list as the source. The profile-scoping rule for all object IDs adds meaning the schema does not encode.

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?

'Close a browser window' names a specific verb and resource, and 'window' clearly separates it from the tabs_close sibling. It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the other window-level tools (create_window, focus_window, get_window).

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 supplies a prerequisite workflow – obtain profile_id from profiles_list – which is genuinely actionable. It gives no when-to-use vs alternative guidance and, notably, does not say how this differs from tabs_close or what happens to open tabs when a window closes.

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