sql_editor_tab_close

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the tab's draft is dropped, the underlying .sql file is untouched, and closing the last tab substitutes an empty tab. The draft loss is the key side effect an agent needs. A minor tension exists with destructiveHint=false since draft content is discarded, but this is a UI-level effect rather than destruction of a server resource, so it is not a true contradiction.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded, followed by the two clarifications that matter. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter UI tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the meaningful outcomes: draft discarded, file preserved, last-tab edge case. The only missing piece is guidance on sourcing/validating tab_id and any confirmation or error behavior.

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 single parameter tab_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be added. It implicitly indicates that a tab is identified by tab_id but never explains how to obtain one (e.g. from sql_editor_tabs) or what happens with an invalid id, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Close a SQL Editor tab') and immediately scopes what is and isn't affected (draft dropped, open .sql file untouched). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sql_editor_tab_new/activate/rename/reorder and from file-deleting tools such as sql_editor_save_file or cleanup tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb-plus-resource ('close a tab'), and the parenthetical about the file being untouched helps an agent judge whether closing is safe with respect to the on-disk file. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. activate/switch tabs, save_draft before closing) or that unsaved draft content is lost, so no explicit when/when-not routing is given.

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