browser_detach_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a structural mutation of window/tab state, yet says nothing about what happens to the source window (does it stay open or close if it becomes empty), whether the tab keeps its identity/state, or what the return looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no ambiguity in phrasing. It is efficient, though extremely terse given the disclosure gaps elsewhere.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, this one-liner is insufficient. It should at minimum describe the required tab_id and the effect on the originating window.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the single required parameter (tab_id) or its expected format or origin. The phrase 'a tab' only weakly implies an identifier is needed, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 a specific verb ('pop out') and resource ('a tab') and states the outcome ('its own new window'), which differentiates it from a plain move into an existing window. It could explicitly name browser_move_tab or browser_duplicate_tab as the alternatives, but the action and result are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to detach versus move, duplicate, or create a new window, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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