tabs_close

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, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a destructive/irreversible mutation but says nothing about losing unsaved state, error conditions, or whether the closed tab's history is affected. Only the bare verb hints at the mutation.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is room to add the essential missing context without bloat.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state how the tab is identified and what happens on failure or when closing the last tab. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to call it reliably.

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 0% for the single 'tab' parameter, and the description adds no clarification about whether it expects a tab ID, index, or URL. With one required parameter fully undocumented in both schema and description, the agent has to guess the identifier format.

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 uses a specific verb (Close) and resource (a tab), which unambiguously separates it from siblings like tabs_create, tabs_list, and tabs_select. It lacks any scope detail (active tab vs. background tab), 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tabs_select or navigate. No prerequisites, no note on what happens if the tab is the last one or currently active. The agent must infer all of this.

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