move_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and 'IPC only', omitting details about side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or error handling for invalid positions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and a notable constraint (IPC only). Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It clearly states what it does but leaves gaps around behavioral expectations, such as what happens with invalid positions or whether the operation can be undone. The cryptic 'IPC only' could confuse an agent unfamiliar with the term.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with a detailed description of the position parameter (absolute, relative, end/start). The description adds the crucial context that the tool operates on the 'current tab', which explains why no tab identifier is needed. This goes beyond the schema's structural information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Move' with a clear resource 'current tab' and a target 'position'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like focus_tab, close_tab, and open_tab. The '(IPC only)' qualifier adds implementation context without obscuring the core purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any reordering alternatives or conditions where this tool should be preferred. The 'IPC only' note hints at an internal constraint but does not explain when an agent should invoke this tool.

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