Lokalise MCP Server

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. It effectively describes key traits: it's a mutation tool ('modifies'), specifies performance limits ('Processes up to 1000 keys per request'), and outlines the return format ('Returns: Updated keys and any errors'). However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error-handling details, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by required parameters, usage scenarios, return values, and performance details. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (batch mutation with performance constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, parameters, returns, and limits. However, it lacks details on error semantics or side effects, which could be important for a bulk operation, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Required: projectId, keys array with {key_id} plus changes' and implying batch processing, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool 'modifies metadata for multiple keys in one operation' with the verb 'modifies' and resource 'metadata for multiple keys'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_update_key' (individual updates) and 'lokalise_bulk_delete_keys' (deletion vs. modification), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: 'Use for large-scale reorganization, batch platform updates, or systematic tagging' and 'More efficient than individual updates for 3+ keys'. It also mentions an alternative ('individual updates') and a performance threshold, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus others.

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