Set and verify explicit native synchronization targets; preflight all requested controls before mutation.
Set and verify explicit native synchronization targets; preflight all requested controls before mutation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| controls | Yes | ||
| target_id | Yes | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | Yes | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context that it preflights and verifies before mutating, which goes beyond the annotations, but it does not explain failure handling, permissions, or the verification result.
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 compact sentence with the action and preflight behavior front-loaded. It avoids repetition and waste, though the phrase "native synchronization targets" is somewhat jargon-heavy.
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?
This is an open-world mutation tool with three required parameters, a nested controls object, and no output schema. The description covers the preflight and verify concept but does not explain what successful verification looks like, what happens on failure beyond what the schema says, or what sync targets mean in practice.
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 description coverage is 67%: target_id and expected_layout_id are well documented in the schema. However, the required controls object's properties (time, symbol, crosshair, timeframe, date_range) have no descriptions, and the tool description does not enumerate or explain them, leaving the nested parameter semantics opaque.
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 specific verbs ("Set and verify") and a resource ("native synchronization targets"), plus clarifies that it mutates after preflight. It is clear enough to identify the action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pane_get_sync or pane_set_layout.
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?
It states a behavior ("preflight all requested controls before mutation") but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as pane_get_sync or pane_set_layout. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.