lokalise_add_contributors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It adds value by stating 'Sends invitation emails automatically' and 'Returns: Added contributors with assigned IDs.' However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or rate limits, which leaves some gaps.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists requirements and side effects. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, required parameters, return value, and a behavioral note (email sending). For a simple add tool with no complex output schema, it is nearly complete, though missing potential error scenarios.

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 coverage is 50%, but the description adds meaning by summarizing required fields: 'projectId, contributors array with email and permissions (admin_rights, is_reviewer, languages)'. This clarifies the structure beyond the schema's deprecated field descriptions.

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 states the tool's purpose as onboarding new team members to a project, using the verb 'onboards' and specifying the resource 'contributors to a project'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lokalise_add_members_to_group' by focusing on projects.

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 use cases: 'Use for team expansion, granting translator access, or adding reviewers.' It also lists required fields, guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings provide context.

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