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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully identifies the operation as a [mutation], explains the conditional dual-behavior (create snippet vs update prompt), and discloses the safety confirmation requirement. It could improve by mentioning idempotency or error behavior when confirm is omitted.

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 efficiently packs the purpose, conditional logic, mutation classification, and confirmation requirement into a single sentence plus a tag. The initial 'Aplicar sugerencia de entrenamiento' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the em-dash structure treats it as a header, keeping the actual description content front-loaded and actionable.

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 conditional logic and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and safety requirements. However, it has clear gaps: it does not describe the return value or success/failure indicators, nor does it explain the relationship between the 'instruction' parameter and the automated behavior.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable behavioral context for the 'confirm' parameter by explaining it is required to execute this 'acción peligrosa'. This safety context goes beyond the schema's technical description.

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 tool applies an AI training suggestion and specifically distinguishes its behavior from siblings by explaining it either 'crea un snippet de conocimiento o actualiza el prompt del asistente' depending on level. It uses a specific verb (aplicar/apply) and identifies the resource (sugerencia de entrenamiento).

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 crucial usage guidance for the confirmation pattern ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), which is essential for this dangerous operation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling alternatives like 'dismiss_training_suggestion' or 'approve_knowledge_snippet'.

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