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 critical behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('Warning: Removes all group assignments - members lose group-based permissions immediately'), the return value ('Returns: Deletion confirmation'), and the immediate impact of the operation. This covers most essential behavioral aspects for a destructive operation.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action, lists requirements, provides usage context, specifies the return value, and includes a critical warning - all in four concise sentences that each serve a distinct purpose.

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 does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, parameters, usage scenarios, return value, and critical warnings. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention authentication requirements or potential error conditions, though these might be inferred from the context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the required parameters ('Required: teamId, groupId') but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Deletes a user group'), resource ('from a Lokalise team'), and consequence ('removing all associated permissions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_update_usergroup' or 'lokalise_get_usergroup' by focusing on deletion rather than modification or retrieval.

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 the tool ('for cleanup, removing obsolete groups, or restructuring team organization'), which helps guide appropriate usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like 'lokalise_update_usergroup' for modifications instead of deletion).

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