Move an open browser tab to a specific position or into another window, with -1 placing it at the end. Use it to reorganize tabs across windows without closing or reloading them.
Move a tab to a position (and optionally to a different window). -1 = end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | ||
| tab_id | Yes | ||
| window_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the '-1 = end' sentinel convention, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, whether the move is reversible, what happens to tab focus/active state, or what the response looks like for a mutation tool.
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?
Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and the window option. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity leaves the sentinel fragment dangling and under-integrated.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only documentation available. It covers the index sentinel but leaves window_id behavior (does the target window need to exist?) and safety/return behavior unexplained for a state-mutating tool.
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% across three parameters. The description partially compensates by explaining that index -1 means 'end', which the schema's raw default does not convey. However, it adds nothing for tab_id (required) or window_id (defaults to null, semantics of moving windows unexplained).
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+resource: 'Move a tab to a position (and optionally to a different window).' An agent can distinguish this from browser_tabs, browser_switch_tab, or browser_detach_tab on the basis of the action described. It stops short of naming or contrasting with those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
No when-to-use context at all. It does not say when to prefer this over browser_detach_tab, browser_switch_tab, or browser_pin_tab, nor whether the tab must already exist or be focused. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.