switch_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what happens if tab_id is invalid, whether the previously active tab is affected, or whether this changes OS/browser focus. It conveys only the surface mutation of active state.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; sized appropriately for a simple single-parameter tool. It is arguably too terse given the semantic gaps elsewhere, but there is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still omits the essential detail of tab_id format and error/edge-case behavior. An agent can guess the intent but not call it reliably.

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 single required parameter tab_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no compensating detail—no indication whether tab_id is an index, an ID string, or a title, nor how to obtain one. This is a real gap the description should have filled.

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 clear verb-like action on a specific resource: activating a tab. An agent can distinguish this from list_tabs, new_tab, and close_tab by the 'make active' phrasing, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus new_tab (create then focus) or list_tabs (discover a tab_id first), no prerequisites such as the tab needing to already exist, and no exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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