tabs_ungroup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it declares the no-side-effect guarantee ('Never activates a tab or focuses a window'), the cascade consequence ('Firefox deletes a group once its last tab leaves it'), a version requirement, and a cross-profile ID scoping warning.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the most surprising consequence, then the safety guarantee, version, and profile sourcing. No filler; every sentence conveys something an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no explanation. For a small two-parameter mutation the description covers the side-effect profile, the group-deletion consequence, the version gate, and the ID scoping rule — nothing material is missing.

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 50%: tab_ids is documented in the schema, but profile_id has no schema description and the description compensates by declaring it required, naming where to obtain it, and warning that object IDs are profile-local. It cannot add much to tab_ids since the schema already covers the accepted formats.

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 and resource ('Remove tabs from their tab group') with unambiguous scope. It is clearly distinct from tabs_group (the inverse), tabs_close (closes tabs), and tabs_groups_update, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 useful prerequisites ('Requires Firefox 138+', 'obtain profile_id from profiles_list'), but never states when to use this rather than tabs_close or tabs_groups_update, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not explicitly routed.

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