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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool ('Modifies'), has constraints ('Cannot change task type after creation'), and triggers notifications ('Changes notify assignees automatically'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and required parameters. Each sentence adds useful information, but the list of optional fields could be slightly condensed, and the structure is clear with no redundant statements.

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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and return values ('Returns: Updated task details'), but could benefit from more behavioral details like response format or error cases to fully compensate for the lack of output schema and annotations.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing optional fields ('title, description, due_date, language assignments, settings') and noting required parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 verb ('Modifies') and resource ('an active work assignment'), specifying it updates tasks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_create_task' (creation) and 'lokalise_get_task' (read-only), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 states when to use this tool ('Use to extend deadlines, reassign work, or update scope'), provides context ('Cannot change task type after creation'), and mentions an automatic effect ('Changes notify assignees automatically'), offering clear guidance on usage scenarios and limitations.

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