GoLogin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens to existing permissions not mentioned.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 with 5 parameters, 60% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 60%, with parameters like 'folders' and 'role' having descriptions, but 'id' and 'wid' lack them. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain parameter relationships, such as how 'limitedAccess' interacts with 'folders'.

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 'Update member permissions' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('member permissions'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'patch_workspaces__wid__rename' or 'post_workspaces__wid__members'. It specifies what is being updated but lacks detail about the workspace context implied by the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing workspace and member, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_workspaces__wid__members__id_' or 'post_workspaces__wid__members'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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