browser_close_tab

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of non-redundant context: that the operation verifies the tab actually disappeared afterward, and that unsaved work should be preserved beforehand. It stops short of describing failure behavior for a failed close.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the verification outcome and then the safety caveat. Nothing is padded and every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers action, safety precondition, and post-condition. Only the behavior on a failed close or a layout-ID mismatch (documented only in the schema) is left implicit.

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%: target_id's origin (browser_list_tabs) and expected_layout_id's mismatch-abort behavior are fully documented in the schema. The description's "this exact tab" only loosely gestures at target_id and adds nothing about the layout guard, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (close) and a scoped resource (this exact TradingView tab), plus an added post-condition (verify the target disappeared). This distinguishes it from browser_open_tab, browser_activate_tab, and browser_navigate, though 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?

"Save work first" gives a useful precondition for invoking the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives (e.g., deactivate instead of close). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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