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 clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Updates'), specifies what gets returned ('Returns: Updated group configuration'), and provides important behavioral constraints ('Cannot modify projects/members here'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, error conditions, 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 with clear sections: purpose statement, parameter guidance, usage context, return value, and important constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 explaining what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and important limitations. However, it could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or potential side effects given this is a write operation.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing required vs. optional parameters and grouping them conceptually ('permissions and assignments'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details 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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('a user group's properties'), specifying what gets updated (permissions and assignments). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning what cannot be modified (projects/members) and pointing to dedicated tools for those operations.

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 adjust group permissions, modify access levels, or reorganize team structure') and when not to use it ('Cannot modify projects/members here - use dedicated tools'), with clear alternatives implied through the sibling tool list.

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