tab_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Move a tab') but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the move is reversible, effects on tab state (e.g., URL, history), or error conditions (e.g., invalid tab_id). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, though it does hint at default behavior for current tab.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the tool's purpose and parameter usage without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., safety, side effects) to be fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'tab_id: The tab ID to move. Omit for the current tab.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose, optionality, and default behavior, going beyond the schema's basic title 'Tab Id' and null handling. With only one parameter, this is sufficient to earn a high score.

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 action ('Move a tab') and the outcome ('to its own new window'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like tab_close, tab_select, and window_move by focusing on tab relocation rather than closure, selection, or window movement. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with tab_new or session_split, which could create similar windows.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'Omit for the current tab,' suggesting it's for moving either a specific or the active tab. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like tab_new (create new tab) or session_split (split pane), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about optimal use cases.

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