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. It discloses this is a mutation tool ('Modifies'), specifies what gets updated (metadata only), and mentions the return value ('Updated project details'). However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 waste: first sentence states purpose, second specifies parameters, third provides usage examples, fourth describes returns, and final sentence gives important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 an adequate job covering basic functionality and exclusions. However, it lacks important context about authentication requirements, error handling, what 'Updated project details' actually contains, and whether all metadata fields are mutable or just name/description.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Required: projectId, projectData object' and 'Optional in data: name, description', but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Modifies') and resource ('project settings and metadata'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'lokalise_create_project' (creation) and 'lokalise_delete_project' (deletion). It explicitly lists what can be modified: name, description, or general project information.

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 rename projects, update descriptions, or fix project information') and explicitly states when NOT to use it ('Only changes metadata - use other tools for content/language changes'). However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools for content/language changes from the sibling list.

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