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 includes '[mutation]' indicating a write operation, but lacks disclosure about idempotency, side effects, what happens if the session is already in the requested state, or what the return value contains. For a state-changing operation, this is minimal behavioral context.

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 follows an efficient two-part structure: an action phrase ('Asignar sesión a marketing'), a dash separator, and a concise explanation with a behavioral tag ('[mutation]'). Zero redundancy; every element earns its place.

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 two-parameter toggle operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about return values or success/failure behaviors that would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, with session_id and enable_mass_marketing fully documented in the schema. The description implies these parameters through 'habilita/deshabilita' and 'sesión', but doesn't add syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 enables or disables ('habilita o deshabilita') a WhatsApp session specifically for marketing campaign sending ('envío de campañas de marketing'). It identifies the specific resource and action, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_marketing_sessions or update_whatsapp_session.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as general session management tools. There are no prerequisites, warnings about state conflicts, or mentions of the read counterpart (get_marketing_sessions).

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