Add an extension from the Chrome Web Store

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and has open-world side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable behavior: it only accepts public extensions, rejects private/unpublished ones, and enforces specific URL prefixes. It doesn't detail side effects or error behavior, but given the simple create action and existing annotations, this is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then constraints, then the alternative. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff. Structure is easy to scan and understand.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage context: what it does, what inputs are valid, and what other tool to use for alternative input formats. It is a complete, self-contained guide for this operation.

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?

The schema covers 67% of parameters, with only 'url' lacking a description. The description compensates by specifying valid URL patterns and rejection criteria for the url parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'format: uri'. The other parameters (mainWebsite, sharedToEntireTeam) are already described in the schema.

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 verb ('Add'), the resource ('public Chrome Web Store extension'), and the purpose ('so it can be attached to profiles'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_extensions and delete_extensions by specifying the action and the source.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'To add a packed .zip instead, use dolphin_request against /extensions/upload-zipped (multipart).' It also gives usage constraints (URL must be a public Chrome Web Store link, private/unpublished are rejected), which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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