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. 'Create multiple shares' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what happens on partial failures, whether shares are revocable, or what the response contains. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise at just two words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. For a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, this brevity is appropriate.

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?

Given this is a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'shares' are in this context, what permissions are required, what happens when sharing fails for some instances, or what the tool returns. The combination of mutation behavior, batch operations, and lack of structured documentation requires more descriptive context.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create multiple shares' clearly states the action (create) and resource (shares), with 'multiple' indicating batch capability. However, it doesn't specify what type of resources are being shared (profiles/folders) or distinguish from sibling tools like 'post_workspaces__wid__members' which also creates shares. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with similar tools like 'post_workspaces__wid__members' (which shares workspace access). There's no indication of when batch sharing is preferred over single operations or what permissions are required.

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