tabs_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Close a tab' implies a destructive action, but it does not state the consequences, reversibility, prerequisites, or potential failure modes. The description only states the trivial action without clarifying the actual behavioral impact, which is a significant gap for a tool that executes a destructive operation.

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, short sentence that gets to the point with no wasted words. For a simple, one-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise, but it is also so bare that it offers no structure beyond a statement of purpose. It earns its place, but nothing more.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the sibling context, the description is minimally adequate. The schema provides the parameter semantics and the sibling list conveys the domain (browser tabs). Yet there is no description of when the operation might fail, what the result is, or whether the tab is closed from the user's browser view. The description leans heavily on the schema and context rather than enriching them.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter tabId, including its description and origin from tabs_context. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics; it merely repeats the action. Because the schema already handles the parameter meaning, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Close a tab.' uses a specific verb and resource, and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools like tabs_activate, tabs_create, and tabs_context. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings; it is simply a standalone action. That still provides enough clarity for an agent to identify the tool's core purpose.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. There is no mention of when closing is appropriate, no prerequisites (e.g., that the tab ID must come from tabs_context, which is in the schema), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the schema and sibling names alone, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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