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. It discloses that changes 'apply immediately to all future translations', indicating real-time impact. It mentions 'supports bulk updates' and 'returns: Updated terms', providing useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover error conditions, permissions needed, or rate limits.

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 in three sentences: purpose, required parameters with usage examples, and behavioral outcomes. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct information without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral traits. However, it could be more complete by addressing error handling, authentication requirements, or what specific 'Updated terms' returns look like. Given the complexity and lack of structured fields, it's mostly adequate but has minor gaps.

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 (projectId and terms) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'terms array with {term_id} plus changes' and listing some fields like definitions, translations, and rules. This provides high-level context but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond what's in the schema.

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 existing glossary definitions and properties, specifying the verb 'modifies' and resource 'glossary definitions and properties'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_create_glossary_terms' (creation) and 'lokalise_delete_glossary_terms' (deletion) by focusing on updates.

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: to refine definitions, add language translations, or adjust rules like case-sensitivity. It mentions 'bulk updates' and 'changes apply immediately to all future translations', giving practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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