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. It discloses the mutation nature via [mutation] tag and explains the consequence (approval enables sending). However, it lacks details on reversibility, idempotency, permission requirements, or error cases (e.g., what happens if campaign is not in pending state).

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 efficiently structured with a title fragment followed by the action description. It wastes no words, though the dual Spanish phrasing ('Aprobar campaña — Aprueba...') is slightly redundant but acceptable.

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 single-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the core workflow (pending → approved → sendable). However, it could be improved by mentioning edge cases, error handling, or whether the operation can be reversed (unapproved).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage ('ID de la campaña a aprobar'), so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description does not add additional semantic context beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action (approve) and target resource (campaign), and distinguishes itself from siblings like start_campaign, update_campaign, or cancel_campaign by specifying this is for campaigns 'pendiente de aprobación' (pending approval) to enable sending.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (when a campaign is pending approval), establishing the prerequisite state. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., if already approved) or which alternative to use for other status changes.

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