tabs_create

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral rule: object IDs are profile-scoped and must never be reused across profiles. It omits other relevant traits — behavior on focus/active, error conditions, duplicate-URL handling, and any auth/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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the required-parameter prerequisite is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose and the profile-scoping prerequisite well, but says nothing about side effects (does it steal focus?) or failure modes, leaving modest gaps.

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 83%, so most parameters are self-documenting. The one undocumented param, profile_id, is exactly what the description compensates for by explaining where to get it and how IDs relate to it. Other params (active, pinned, window_id, cookie_store_id) are left to the schema.

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+resource ("Create a new browser tab") that an agent can clearly separate from create_window and the tabs_* family. No explicit sibling callout, but the resource noun does the differentiation work.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite workflow ("obtain profile_id from profiles_list"), which is useful context. However, it gives no guidance on alternatives — e.g., why use this versus navigation_go_to_url on an existing tab, or when to specify window_id vs letting it default.

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