claim_tab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the effect (making the tab active), which is the key behavioral outcome. However, it doesn't disclose additional behaviors like whether it steals focus from the user, whether it changes the tab's position, or whether there's any impact on other open tabs beyond activation. The core mutation is disclosed but edge behaviors are not.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys purpose and origin of the parameter without wasted words. It could arguably include a bit more guidance but there is zero fluff. Slightly more content (like what happens after claiming) would be valuable, but as written it's tight and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does (makes tab active), where the id comes from (list_user_tabs). Given the low complexity (1 param, no nested objects, no output schema), this is reasonably complete. It could mention whether the tool also brings the tab into a visible window, but for a simple action tool this is adequate.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single 'id' parameter by specifying its source (list_user_tabs) and implicitly distinguishing it from other tab IDs possibly from list_tabs. While schema coverage is 100% (the schema already explains 'id from list_user_tabs'), the description confirms the semantic meaning that this id is for an existing user tab, adding slight value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb (take control), the resource (existing Chrome tab), and the specific action (make it the active/foreground tab). The parenthetical note 'id from list_user_tabs' ties the source of the required parameter to a specific sibling tool, distinguishing it from other tab operations. This is a specific, well-scoped purpose statement.

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 names the prerequisite source (list_user_tabs) for the id parameter, which gives some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like list_tabs, new_tab, or goto. There's clear context but no exclusionary guidance about alternatives.

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