WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The '[mutation]' tag indicates state modification, but with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and lacks critical details: it does not mention conflict resolution with existing rules, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects on calendar scheduling.

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 the action front-loaded ('Crear regla de disponibilidad') and the explanatory clause following. It avoids redundancy with the schema, though its brevity leaves gaps for a complex mutation tool.

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?

Given this is a mutation operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to address error conditions, what constitutes a conflicting rule, or what the operation returns.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions the three rule types in Spanish ('semanal, excepcion por fecha, bloqueo'), which aligns with the rule_type parameter values, but does not add syntax details, format examples, or clarify interdependencies between parameters (e.g., day_of_week vs specific_date).

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 it creates an availability rule ('Crea una regla de disponibilidad') and specifies the three rule types supported (weekly, date exception, blocking), distinguishing it from siblings like create_calendar_event. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from update_calendar_availability.

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?

While the description lists the rule types (weekly, date exception, blocked), it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_calendar_availability or delete_calendar_availability, nor does it state prerequisites like calendar ownership.

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