release_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions transitioning to 'idle 상태' but doesn't explain what this means operationally - whether the tab remains open, what resources are freed, whether the action is reversible, or what happens if the tab isn't actually 'completed'. The description doesn't address permissions, side effects, or error behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 tool that presumably changes tab state (with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'idle 상태' means, what happens after the operation, whether there are side effects, or what constitutes a '사용 완료된 탭' (completed tab). The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and appropriate usage context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the schema already documents 'tabId' adequately. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with zero parameters requiring additional explanation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states the action ('반환합니다' - returns) and target resource ('사용 완료된 탭' - completed tab), but is somewhat vague about what 'idle 상태' (idle state) means in practice. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'close' (which would terminate) and 'launch' (which would create), but doesn't clearly differentiate from other tab management operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close' or when tabs should be considered '사용 완료된' (completed). There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical workflow context for releasing tabs to idle state.

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