browser_close_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavior that closing a window cascades to every tab and leaves other windows intact. However, it never states that the action is irreversible or that unsaved state in those tabs is lost, which is exactly the risk context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Three short sentences: scope first, then non-effect on other windows, then sibling routing. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the essential semantics (what is closed, what is spared, where to go for the narrower case) are all present. Only the irreversibility/data-loss warning is missing.

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 100% with a single required windowId already documented ('The window to close.'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra semantics such as format, whether the ID is user-visible, or what error occurs for a stale ID, making baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Close a browser window and every tab in it') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('Other windows are unaffected'). It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (browser_close_tab), so an agent can choose correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: one tab → browser_close_tab, whole window → this tool. The 'other windows are unaffected' clause plus the alternative naming covers the realistic selection decision an agent faces.

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