close_page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying that after closing, the agent 'keep[s] driving a remaining one', which implies an automatic switch or continuation behavior not evident from annotations. This extra context helps the agent anticipate post-action 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. The core action is front-loaded, and the extra clause about continuing with a remaining tab is meaningful, not filler.

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 destructive tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the primary action and the continuation behavior. However, it omits edge cases like what happens when there is only one tab or if the index is out of bounds, which could be critical for safe invocation. It is adequate for typical use but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It states 'at this index', which indicates the index refers to the tab position, but it does not specify zero-based indexing, valid ranges, or behavior for invalid indices. The description partially compensates but leaves some ambiguity.

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 a specific verb 'Close' with a clear resource 'the tab' and the target parameter 'at this index'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like new_page (creates) and select_page (switches without closing), so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

The description implies a use case: closing a tab and continuing with a remaining one, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention constraints like 'do not close the last tab' or 'use select_page if you only want to switch without closing'.

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