close_workspace_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the irreversible nature, the unsaved changes risk, the force behavior, tab matching ambiguity, the refusal of the last remaining tab, and the canvas neighborhood transition. It also states that nothing is written to disk and nothing can be undone, providing essential behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 organized into a purpose paragraph, a behavioral caution paragraph, a canvas behavior note, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure makes it easy to scan. While detailed, each part contributes to safe selection and effective invocation.

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?

The tool has an output schema and no required parameters, and the description still covers why, when, how, and what consequences apply. It explains ambiguous cases, refused edge cases, and save-related interaction with other tools. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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?

Even though the input schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), the description explains all three parameters clearly: tab's accepted forms (index/path/filename/empty), force's meaning and risk, and client_id's role as the browser tab identifier. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Close one of the workflow tabs open in the ComfyUI window." It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like switch_workspace_tab, save_workspace, and the various workspace manipulation tools by focusing on tab lifecycle cleanup.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool: as the counterpart to switch_workspace_tab, and as the way to tidy up after loads that each open a tab. It contrasts behavior with save_workspace and explains that only ComfyUI's own Save clears the dirty flag, giving clear functional context and exclusions.

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