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 delivers comprehensive behavioral disclosure: irreversible nature ('Warning: Irreversible - all translations lost'), required parameters ('Required: projectId, keyId'), return value ('Returns: Deletion confirmation'), and practical guidance about archiving.

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?

Perfectly structured with zero waste: first sentence states purpose, second lists requirements, third provides usage scenarios, fourth covers return value, fifth gives critical warning, sixth offers precautionary advice, seventh names alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral warnings, parameter requirements, return value information, and sibling tool differentiation. Nothing essential is missing.

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. The description mentions 'Required: projectId, keyId' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('permanently removes'), resource ('obsolete content and all its translations'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'bulk delete' for multiple keys. It goes beyond the name/title by explaining what gets deleted.

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 states when to use ('removing deprecated features, cleaning typos in key names, or content no longer needed'), when to consider alternatives ('Consider archiving important content first'), and names a specific alternative ('For multiple keys, use bulk delete').

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