lokalise_update_translation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that changes are visible immediately to all users, which is a key trait. However, it does not mention permissions, destructive overwrite behavior, or idempotency.

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 and structured logically: main action, required parameters, optional parameters, use cases, return type, and a note on visibility. No extraneous text.

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 well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, use cases, and a behavioral note. It lacks error handling or idempotency info but is sufficient for typical use.

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 100%, and the description summarizes required and optional parameters already defined in the schema. It adds minimal value beyond clarifying which parameters map to which functionality and noting the return type.

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 'modifies' and the resource 'actual translated text or its review status'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lokalise_update_key by specifying translation-specific 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 lists required and optional parameters and provides example use cases (fix typos, approve translations, mark problematic content). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like lokalise_bulk_update_translations, but the context is clear.

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