Minimize a browser window to keep it out of someone's way while you work; its tabs keep running and snapshots remain available, and it can be restored later.
Minimize one of your windows (every tab in it yours), to keep it out of a person's way while you work in it. Pages in it keep running at full speed and snapshots keep working. browser_show brings it back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| windowId | Yes | The window to minimize. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the non-obvious traits that pages keep running at full speed, snapshots keep working, and browser_show reverses it. That is the critical distinction from closing a window; only permission/auth requirements are left unstated.
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, front-loaded with the action and purpose, then behavior, then the restore path. No filler and nothing repeated.
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?
A single-parameter, non-destructive action with no output schema and no annotations; the description covers what happens to the window, what keeps running, and how to undo it. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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% and the single windowId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds minor meaning by clarifying the window is yours and contains all your tabs, but no format or lookup guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb (minimize) and resource (one of your windows), and clarifies scope with "every tab in it yours". This cleanly separates it from browser_close_window (destroy) and browser_show (restore), both of which appear in the sibling list.
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?
Gives the motivating context ("keep it out of a person's way while you work in it") and names browser_show as the inverse operation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when the window should actually be closed), so it falls short of a full when/when-not pairing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.