browser_close_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is destructive, what happens to the tabs inside the window, whether the window's state is lost, or how failures (e.g. invalid/last window ID) are surfaced.

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 short sentence with the action and the required input front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that the source-of-ID hint is the only added content.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanics but omits consequence information (tabs closed, state lost) and error behavior. Adequate minimum, but not complete for a mutation operation.

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 window_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does supply the one genuinely useful fact — that the ID comes from browser_windows — but adds no type, validity, or error semantics beyond that.

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 ('a browser window') plus the identifier it operates on, which is enough to separate it from browser_close_tab at a glance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with its very similar siblings (browser_close_tab, browser_focus_window, browser_windows), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 parenthetical '(from browser_windows)' implies the workflow: obtain the window_id from browser_windows, then close it here. That is useful inferred guidance, but there is no statement of when to close a window versus a tab, nor any prerequisites or warnings.

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