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 the '[mutation]' tag and warns about the plan limit failure condition. However, it lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or what constitutes successful creation (e.g., immediate activation status).

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 in three distinct clauses: a title fragment, the core action, and the failure constraint. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler content, making it appropriately sized for quick comprehension.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters (including nested permission objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic operation and business constraint (plan limits) but omits return value details, permission parameter differentiation, and post-creation behavior that would make it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear Spanish descriptions for all 8 parameters (nickname, full_name, email, color, phone, pin, permissions_json, permissions). The description does not add syntax details or clarify the distinction between the two permission parameters (string vs object), so it meets the baseline of 3 where schema coverage is complete.

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 'Crea un nuevo agente de atencion' (Creates a new customer service agent), providing a specific verb and resource type. It distinguishes from siblings like update_agent and delete_agent through the keyword 'nuevo' and the creation focus, though it does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus update_agent.

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 one usage constraint ('Puede fallar si se ha alcanzado el limite de agentes') indicating a plan limit prerequisite, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over update_agent or other alternatives. The failure condition is helpful but stops short of full usage guidelines.

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