lokalise_empty_project

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses the effect: removes all keys and translations while keeping languages, team, and configuration. It also mentions returning an operation confirmation. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value: purpose, required param, use cases, return, effect, and safety comparison. No 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?

For a simple reset tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, effect, and alternatives. It could be slightly more complete by noting irreversibility or async behavior, but it is sufficient for 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?

The single parameter 'projectId' is documented in the schema with description 'Project ID to empty'. The description reiterates it as required but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, which has 100% 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?

Description clearly states it resets project content while preserving settings and team, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_project which would remove the entire project.

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?

Explicit use cases are given (major refactoring, starting fresh, clearing test data), and it is described as a safer alternative to deletion, implying scenarios where deletion would be inappropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude other alternatives like bulk_delete_keys.

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