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 and successfully discloses the mutation nature [mutation], cascade scope (events, services, availability), and safety requirement (confirmation). It does not mention reversibility or specific error conditions, preventing a perfect score.

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 an action prefix, em-dash separator, core functionality statement, mutation tag, and parenthetical confirmation instruction. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructive mutation tool with cascade effects, the description adequately covers scope and safety requirements. Without an output schema, it appropriately focuses on input requirements and behavioral warnings rather than return values.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description mentions the confirm parameter requirement, but this largely repeats the schema description rather than adding significant semantic value beyond it.

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 deletes a calendar and explicitly lists cascade effects (events, services, availability), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_calendar_event or delete_calendar_service that target specific components.

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 explicit usage guidance regarding the confirmation requirement ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), effectively signaling this is a dangerous operation. However, it could more explicitly contrast when to use this versus component-specific deletion tools.

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