switch_tab

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description must do all the work, and it does: it discloses that breakpoints from the previous tab are removed, that an existing pause ends unless DevTools is attached, and that console/network buffers are cleared and refilled. These are exactly the destructive side effects an agent needs before re-targeting a debugger session.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core action first, then the non-focusing property, then two concrete state-effects. No filler and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists and covers return values, and the side-effect profile is fully spelled out. The only gap is failure/edge behavior — what happens if targetId is stale or the tab is closed — which an agent would likely want before switching.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as a target ID from list_tabs. The description says nothing about targetId, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 under a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — connect the server to another Chrome tab — and adds a distinguishing scope note ('without bringing it to the front') that separates it from a plain tab activation. It implicitly contrasts with navigate_tab/reload_tab by framing itself as a re-targeting of the server rather than an action on page content, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you need to operate on a different tab. There is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' and no prerequisite statement (e.g., that the target must already be open or obtainable via list_tabs) — that hint lives only in the schema. Adequate but inferential.

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