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 communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Cannot be undone'), clarifies the scope of deletion ('Only removes the assignment - keys and translations remain unchanged'), and mentions the return value ('Deletion confirmation'). However, it doesn't specify permission requirements or potential side effects on workflows.

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 distinct information chunks: action definition, required parameters, use cases, and behavioral notes. Each sentence earns its place by adding unique value without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering the irreversible nature, scope limitations, and return value. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error conditions. Given the 2-parameter simplicity and clear behavioral notes, it's mostly adequate.

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 adequately. The description adds minimal value by listing 'Required: projectId, taskId' but doesn't provide additional context about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what's in the schema. 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 specific action ('Cancels a work assignment'), identifies the resource ('task'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'lokalise_delete_key' or 'lokalise_delete_project' by specifying it only removes the assignment while leaving keys/translations unchanged. The verb 'cancels' is precise and differentiates from other deletion operations.

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 three use cases ('cancel mistaken tasks, clean completed work, or remove test assignments'), which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool. It also distinguishes from alternatives by noting that keys and translations remain unchanged, implying this is for assignment management rather than content deletion.

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