chrome_switch_tab

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the window-focus side effect (behavior beyond the annotations), but says nothing about what happens with an invalid or stale tabId.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the action and its window side effect. Zero filler.

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 whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers the essential behavior. Minor gap: no indication of error behavior for an invalid tabId or whether focus is mandatory.

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 100% and the single tabId parameter is documented there (including the 'default: active tab' note). The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Activate a tab and focus its window' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chrome_list_tabs, chrome_new_tab, and chrome_close_tab. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the purpose is 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?

No guidance on when to switch tabs versus creating (chrome_new_tab) or listing (chrome_list_tabs) them, and no note on prerequisites such as the tab already existing or being reachable. The agent must infer the usage context.

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