WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly identifies the operation as a '[mutation]' and notes comments are 'internal' (not customer-visible), but fails to explain the presence of 7 unrelated-looking optional parameters (query, limit, tag_name, tag_color, primary_phone, secondary_phone) or disclose idempotency, error behaviors, or side effects.

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 appropriately brief with a title-explanation structure using an em-dash. It avoids fluff, though the repetition between 'Anadir comentario' and 'Anade un nuevo comentario' is slightly redundant. It is front-loaded with the essential 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 mutation tool with 9 input parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It completely ignores 7 optional parameters that appear unrelated to comment addition (suggesting search/tag/merge functionality), provides no return value documentation, and omits error handling or transaction boundaries.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies phone and comment are central but adds no semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., phone format expectations, agent_name default behavior, or the purpose of the other 7 parameters).

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 core action (añadir/añade) and resource (comentario interno a cliente), distinguishing it from siblings like add_customer_tag or add_email_note. The '[mutation]' tag helps clarify it's a write operation. However, it doesn't distinguish from search_customer_comments or get_customer_comments explicitly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_email_note for public-facing notes), nor does it mention prerequisites like the customer needing to exist first. No 'when-not-to-use' conditions are specified.

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