Reopen a tab inside a container

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: the original tab is closed after reopening, the page reloads, and in-page state is lost. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs to know before invoking a mutation that changes tab context. The behavior is consistent with the annotations.

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 description is three sentences and front-loads the core action and side effect. Each sentence contributes: what happens, how it relates to the context menu, where to get ids, and the state-loss warning.

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-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: container id source, original tab closure, and page reload/state loss. No critical information needed to call it correctly appears to be 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that userContext ids come from browser_list_user_contexts, but it adds no additional syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: reopening the current page in a tab belonging to a container/user context and closing the original. It distinguishes this from generic tab moves by tying it to container contexts and the Firefox ContextualIdentityService behavior. An agent can identify this as the container-specific tab move operation 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?

The description provides clear usage context by explaining that this mirrors the tab context menu move and by pointing to browser_list_user_contexts for container ids. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as browser_move_tab or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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