GoLogin MCP

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 but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention whether this is an additive/replacement operation, if changes are reversible, what permissions are required, potential rate limits, or what happens to extensions not mentioned in the parameters. For a mutation tool affecting multiple profiles, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero wasted verbiage or redundant explanations.

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 mutation tool affecting multiple profiles with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled with multiple profiles, whether operations are atomic, or what validation occurs. The combination of mutation complexity and missing structured documentation requires more descriptive context than provided.

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 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage. The baseline of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 ('Update') and target resource ('chrome extensions for multiple profiles'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'patch_profile_bookmarks_many' or 'patch_profile_name_many', but the resource specificity (chrome extensions vs bookmarks/names) provides implicit distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to upload custom extensions first), compare with single-profile update tools if they exist, or specify appropriate contexts for batch updates versus individual operations.

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