delete_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), which is crucial for a mutation tool. It also adds valuable context about the restart requirement, which isn't obvious from the schema. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects (e.g., data loss, error handling) or response behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides critical behavioral context. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (the deletion action) is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral constraint (restart requirement), but lacks information about what happens after deletion, error conditions, or confirmation of success. Given the tool's potential impact, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'tabId' fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the tab to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameter beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a tab') and the target resource ('from Arc browser by its ID'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_space' or 'list_tabs' beyond the obvious resource difference, so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling distinction.

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 includes an important usage constraint ('Requires Arc restart to take effect'), which provides context about when effects become visible. However, it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tabs' for checking tabs first or 'delete_space' for different resources, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the ID requirement.

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