Lokalise MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels in disclosing critical behavioral traits. It explicitly states the operation is 'irreversible' and 'permanently deleted,' warns to 'always verify key list before execution,' specifies it's a 'batch operation,' and mentions the return value ('Deletion results'). This covers safety, consequences, and output expectations comprehensively.

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?

Front-loaded with key information ('Large-scale cleanup...'), followed by requirements, usage scenarios, returns, and critical warnings in a logical flow. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential context without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (destructive batch operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral risks, parameters, and return values, providing all necessary context for safe and effective use without relying on structured fields.

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 both parameters (projectId and keyIds) with details like array constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Required: projectId, keyIds array' and implying batch size ('multiple obsolete keys'), but does not provide additional syntax or format insights. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('large-scale cleanup removing multiple obsolete keys permanently') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing its batch deletion nature versus single deletion (lokalise_delete_key) or other bulk operations like bulk_update_keys. It specifies the resource (keys) and scope (multiple, obsolete) with precision.

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 guidance: 'Use for removing deprecated feature sets, post-refactoring cleanup, or major content pruning.' It also includes a critical warning about irreversibility and verification, effectively indicating when not to use it (e.g., for minor updates or reversible changes). This distinguishes it from alternatives like lokalise_delete_key for single deletions or bulk_update_keys for modifications.

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