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 usefully includes the '[mutation]' tag and clarifies the target is completed campaigns, but omits whether the action is reversible (despite unarchive_campaign being a sibling), what specific state changes occur, or any side effects on related data.

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 optimally front-loaded with the action ('Archivar campaña'), followed by the em-dash explanation and the '[mutation]' tag. Every word earns its place—no redundancy, no filler, and the meta-tag is efficiently appended.

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 simple single-parameter mutation without an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and constraint (completed status). However, given the existence of unarchive_campaign as a sibling, the description would benefit from mentioning reversibility to be fully contextually complete.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by implying the campaign_id should refer to a 'completed' campaign, which constrains usage beyond the raw ID type in the schema. However, it doesn't add format details, examples, or validation rules beyond the schema's 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 (archive) and resource (campaign), including the scope limitation to 'completed' campaigns. It distinguishes from active-state siblings like pause/resume/cancel by emphasizing the 'completed' status and cleanup purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with permanent deletion.

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?

It implies the appropriate context (completed campaigns) and purpose (keeping the list clean), but lacks explicit guidance on when *not* to use it versus alternatives like delete_campaign or cancel_campaign. The mention of '[mutation]' hints at write behavior but doesn't guide selection over read-only alternatives like get_campaign.

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