safari_close_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the action and the receipt requirement after restart, but it doesn't mention irreversibility, error behavior, or what happens if no receipt is available. The core behavior is clear, though the destructive nature is only implicit.

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 efficient sentences: the first states the action, the second covers the key edge case. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple tab-closing tool, the description covers the primary non-obvious condition (receipts after restart) and flags the deprecated parameter. It lacks explicit error/return behavior and a direct warning about destructiveness, so it is slightly shy of fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'receipt' is opaque, ties it to safari_new_tab/safari_list_tabs, and notes the 'url' parameter is deprecated. This gives the agent practical guidance beyond the schema text.

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 verb and resource: 'Close the current tab.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from tab-related siblings like safari_new_tab, safari_switch_tab, and safari_list_tabs.

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 gives a concrete usage condition: after a daemon/session restart, pass the opaque receipt from safari_new_tab or safari_list_tabs. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or when-not conditions, but no close-specific sibling exists, so the context provided is sufficient.

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