lokalise_update_contributor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation behavior, return value, and a critical limitation (self-modification restriction). Lacks details on idempotency or effect of providing no optional parameters, but is adequate.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, required/optional, use cases, return, and limitation. No verbose or redundant phrases. Efficient for its content.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, a key behavioral constraint, and return type. Missing error handling or concurrency info, but these are reasonable gaps.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters; description adds context by grouping optional parameters (admin_rights, is_reviewer, languages) and explaining their purpose (role/permission changes). It also clarifies deprecated fields. Does not add structural details beyond 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Modifies' and resource 'team member's role, permissions, or language access'. It distinguishes from siblings like add/remove/list by focusing on modification, and specifies use cases (promote/demote, adjust language assignments, fix permission issues).

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?

Lists required and optional parameters, and includes a key limitation ('Cannot modify your own admin rights'). While it could explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., use add_contributor for new members), the context from sibling names makes the intent clear.

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