lokalise_update_glossary_terms

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 that the tool supports bulk updates and that changes apply immediately, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not detail potential side effects, permission requirements, or other nuances beyond the immediate update.

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 extremely concise at three sentences, with the most critical information (action, required fields, purposes) front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous content is present.

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 absence of an output schema, the description still mentions the return of updated terms, which suffices. The input schema is well-documented, and the description covers the main usage context. A minor gap is the lack of mention about any constraints or limits on bulk updates, but overall it is complete for a modification tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining the required structure of the 'terms' array and summarizing what fields can be updated (definitions, translations, rules). This helps the agent understand the purpose of each parameter beyond just their schema definitions.

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 it modifies existing glossary terms, specifying both the resource and action. It also lists required fields and mentions the ability to refine definitions, add translations, and adjust rules, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete.

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 (refine definitions, add translations, adjust rules) and notes required parameters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the mention of required fields and the context of bulk updates gives clear guidance, and sibling tools offer alternatives.

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