close_tabs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the iterative process, partial failure isolation, likely cause (manual tab closure), and return format. It doesn't dive into edge cases like invalid ids, but this is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences: the first shows the call signature and intent, the second explains failure tolerance and return. No wasted words.

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 simple batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and return structure sufficiently. The failure-isolation note addresses the key operational scenario.

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 already describes the tabs array and its provenance from sweep_tabs. The description adds a concrete usage example (close_tabs([1,2,3])), reinforcing the expected input format, which is valuable beyond the 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 it batch-closes tabs by iterating over close_tab, distinguishing it from the singular close_tab sibling. It also specifies the return object shape {closed, failed}.

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 batch usage and notes that failure in one tab doesn't affect the rest, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use close_tabs over close_tab. The sibling list includes close_tab, making the distinction inferable.

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