Close the Developer Tools toolbox

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the burden is mostly on the description, and it does convey that 'all' clobbers every toolbox rather than one. However it never says what is lost when a toolbox is closed (inspector state, unsaved console/element selections) or whether the call fails when no toolbox exists. The cited entry points add a note of implementation grounding but no behavioral consequence.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The second sentence spends roughly half the description quoting internal Firefox entry points, which is meta-commentary an agent cannot act on and crowds out more useful guidance such as prerequisites or the closed-state outcome.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and only a single annotation, the description covers both call modes and the default-tab behavior. The remaining gap is what happens on success/failure and whether the tab's DevTools state is recoverable, which is a moderate rather than severe omission.

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 100%, so both `all` and `context` are already documented (including the active-tab default), and the description's phrase 'for a tab, or all of them' only restates them. The `{destroy}` token in the second sentence references an option that is not a parameter, which adds confusion rather than semantics. Baseline 3.

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: 'Close the DevTools toolbox for a tab, or all of them.' An agent can distinguish this from browser_devtools_open and browser_devtools_tools by the close/open contrast. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'for a tab, or all of them' implies the two modes but never states when to use which, nor any prerequisite such as DevTools having been opened on that tab first. There is no mention of the complementary reopen path (browser_devtools_open) after closing, leaving the agent to infer the lifecycle.

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