tab_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Close') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), what happens to sessions in the tab, if confirmation is needed, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief, clear parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (a destructive operation with one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., destructiveness, error handling) and sibling differentiation, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's correct invocation in a broader context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining 'tab_id' semantics: it specifies the parameter's purpose ('The tab ID to close') and adds crucial behavioral context ('Omit for the current tab'), which the schema alone does not provide. This adds meaningful value beyond the input 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 ('Close') and resource ('an iTerm2 tab'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'session_close' or 'window_close', but the specificity of 'tab' provides some implicit distinction. The purpose is not vague, tautological, or misleading.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'session_close' or 'window_close', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the optional parameter behavior for 'tab_id', which is basic parameter documentation rather than contextual guidance.

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