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 and does well by disclosing that changes 'apply immediately' (important for mutation tools) and specifying what gets updated ('metadata only'). It could improve by mentioning authentication requirements or potential side effects, but covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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 purpose first, then parameters, usage guidance, return value, and important note. Every sentence earns its place: the first establishes purpose, the second covers parameters, the third provides usage examples, the fourth specifies returns, and the fifth clarifies scope limitations.

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 by covering purpose, parameters, usage guidance, return value ('Returns: Updated key'), and behavioral notes. It could be more complete by describing the format of the returned key or error conditions, but provides substantial context given the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing optional fields ('key_name, description, platforms, tags') and noting required parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or constraints.

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 ('Modifies key metadata') and resource ('key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lokalise_update_translation' (which modifies text) and 'lokalise_bulk_update_keys' (which handles multiple keys). It explicitly differentiates by stating 'This updates metadata only - use translation tools to modify actual text.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to clarify meaning for translators, fix platform assignments, or reorganize content') and when not to use it ('use translation tools to modify actual text'). It also implicitly distinguishes from bulk operations by focusing on single-key updates.

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