texterify-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the response structure (data vs. included fields, specific attributes like html_enabled and pluralization_enabled) which compensates for the missing output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose statement, usage guideline with workflow context, and response structure details. Every sentence provides distinct value with no repetition of structured data. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 2-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and good safety annotations, the description is complete. Critically, since no output schema exists, the description effectively documents the response payload structure (data and included fields), leaving no significant 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions (e.g., key_id references list_keys responses, project_id references texterify.json). Baseline 3 applies. The description mentions the key_id requirement and list_keys dependency, but this largely restates information already present in the schema property 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 opens with specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'translation key', clearly defining scope as a single key with 'all its translations across every project language, plus related tags and placeholders'. It immediately distinguishes this from sibling list_keys (single vs. list) and implies the read-only nature vs. update_key.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'inspect the complete translation state of a specific key before updating' and 'verify translations after setting them'. Also provides direct workflow dependency: 'Requires a key_id — use list_keys to find it', guiding the agent to a sibling tool for prerequisites.

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