Change tab groups

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: group-wide operations are refused unless every member is shared, and are blocked while the user retains control. It does not state what a failed partial add/remove leaves behind, nor the retry/reconcile behavior that the request_id field implies, keeping it below 5.

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 action-prefixed clause structure front-loads the enumeration and every clause carries information; nothing is redundant. It is a dense run-on with no paragraphing, but the density is justified by the multi-action surface.

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 10-parameter, destructive, multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action semantics and refusal conditions but omits two things an agent needs: how the target group is identified (handle) and what create returns (a handle to use in later calls). Return-value explanation is partially excused by the absence of an output schema, but the handle omission is a genuine gap.

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 only 40%, and the description compensates by implicitly mapping actions to fields (update -> title/color/collapsed, move -> index, add_tabs/remove_tabs -> context_ids, activate -> context_id). However it never mentions the handle parameter, which is presumably required for every non-create action, and does not spell out the action-to-parameter mapping explicitly, so the coverage gap is only partially closed.

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 enumerates every action verb with its resource effect (create groups tabs, update renames/recolors/collapses, add_tabs/remove_tabs change membership, move repositions, activate focuses), so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It never differentiates itself from the near-identically named sibling browser_groups (the read counterpart), which is the main risk for mis-selection, so it stops short of 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?

Per-action guidance is explicit (which tabs may be added, when changes are refused), giving clear conditions for success versus refusal. It does not name an alternative path (e.g. browser_request_access when sharing is refused) or point to browser_groups for read-only listing, so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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