Close Muse browser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two observable effects (window closes, profile released), which is useful, but omits whether the call is idempotent, what happens if no window is open, and whether in-flight chat state is lost.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with two concrete effects and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names both the action and its cleanup side effect. Only edge-case behavior (calling when nothing is open, effect on session data) is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input contract. The description correctly adds no parameter detail, which is the expected baseline for a no-arg tool.

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 resource ('the dedicated Chrome window') and adds the side effect of releasing the profile. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never names a sibling or scope condition to differentiate it from the muse_open_chat/muse_chats family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any precondition (e.g. whether a Muse session must be active). The agent must infer that this is a teardown step to use at the end of a session.

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