close_chrome

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (token revoked on success), the blast radius (other managed sessions unaffected), and an error-semantics caveat about not_connected. It stops short of describing the success return value or whether the underlying Chrome process is terminated versus just deregistered.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the caveats. Every sentence contributes, though the final broker/not_connected sentence is syntactically dense and could be split for clarity.

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, no-output-schema tool this covers intent, scope, side effects, and a failure-mode caveat. The only remaining gap is what a success response looks like, which is minor since no output schema is declared.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented with an origin ('use the token returned by launch_chrome'). The description adds one useful semantic not in the schema: the token is revoked as a consequence of a successful close, reinforcing that this value is a capability that is consumed.

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: 'Explicitly close only the Chrome session identified by browser_token and revoke its token on success.' Scope is bounded ('only... Other managed sessions remain open'), which cleanly separates it from launch_chrome and the dialog siblings.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use (explicit close of one session) and when not to ('do not close it automatically at task completion'), and the phrase 'the reusable browser normally remains open across tasks' explains the rationale. It also warns that 'not_connected' from an absent broker is not evidence Chrome exited, preventing a common misdiagnosis.

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