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 does well by disclosing: 1) it's a creation/mutation operation ('Adds'), 2) visibility scope ('Comments are visible to all project members'), 3) return values ('Returns: Created comments with IDs'), and 4) bulk capability. It doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides solid behavioral context for a creation tool.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences: purpose, required parameters, usage examples, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value - no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the action, parameters, usage context, visibility, and return values. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error cases, but covers the essential context for team collaboration comments. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Required: projectId, keyId, comments array' and that comments need 'comment' text, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Adds one or more comments'), target resource ('to a translation key'), and purpose ('for team collaboration'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'lokalise_list_key_comments' (which lists comments) and 'lokalise_delete_comment' (which removes comments) by focusing on creation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Use to ask translators questions, provide context, leave implementation notes, or flag issues') and mentions bulk creation efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., when to use 'lokalise_list_key_comments' instead).

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