arc_close_tabs

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

The description indicates the tool is destructive (close) and offers a dry_run option to preview, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not elaborate on other behaviors like error handling or undo.

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 two sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second adds key functionality. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and simple functionality, the description covers the essential action and preview feature. It could mention edge cases (e.g., invalid IDs) but is adequate for typical use.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions tab_ids generically and dry_run as 'preview'. It does not explain the format of tab_ids or the exact effect of dry_run, leaving 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 clearly states the action (close), the resource (Arc tabs), and the method (by explicit tab id). It also mentions the dry_run feature for preview. This distinguishes it from siblings like arc_create_tab or arc_select_tab.

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 advises using dry_run to preview, which is useful, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., arc_reload_tabs) or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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