close_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key restriction that only MCP-opened tabs are closable without force, but says nothing about what happens on a blocked close (error vs. silent no-op), whether closing is destructive/irreversible, or any auth requirements.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the constraint follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the critical closing restriction, which is enough for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and reversibility.

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 coverage is 50%: force is documented in the schema, pageId is not. The description confirms pageId means the page to close and echoes the force behavior, partially compensating. However, it adds little beyond the existing force schema description and no format/identifier detail for pageId.

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 ("Closes a page by its ID") with a clear scope condition, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like select_page, list_pages, or new_page, which keeps it 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?

The description gives a concrete usage condition: only tabs opened by this MCP can be closed, unless force is true. That tells the agent when the call will succeed and when to reach for the force flag. It stops short of naming any alternative tool or describing failure behavior.

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