Fechar aba

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key constraint (only server-opened tabs) but does not explain error behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the tabId does not exist or belongs to a user. This is a moderate gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately states the restriction. Every word is useful, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical restriction. However, it omits parameter provenance, error handling, and any side effects, leaving the agent without full guidance for correct invocation. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 has zero description coverage for the single parameter tabId, and the description adds no meaning beyond the name and integer type. There is no guidance on how to obtain the tabId (e.g., from arc_tabs) or any format details, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action (closes a tab), the specific resource (a tab opened by this server), and a distinct limitation (user tabs cannot be closed). It differentiates from siblings like arc_tabs or arc_navigate by focusing on the close operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for tabs opened by this server) and when not to use (user tabs cannot be closed). This provides both a clear context and an exclusion, satisfying the when/when-not criterion without ambiguity.

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