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 effectively discloses behavioral traits by tagging it as [mutation] and labeling it an 'acción peligrosa' (dangerous action) that requires explicit confirmation, clearly signaling the destructive nature of the operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: it opens with the action ('Eliminar regla de disponibilidad'), immediately clarifies the purpose, tags the mutation type, and closes with the critical confirmation instruction. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 deletion tool without output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the mutation semantics, confirmation safety pattern, and target resource. It could mention irreversibility or side effects on existing calendar events, but adequately covers the essential operational context.

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, documenting both rule_id and confirm parameters. The description mentions the confirm=true requirement, but this largely restates the schema description. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Elimina una regla de disponibilidad del calendario' (Deletes a calendar availability rule), providing a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_calendar_availability, update_calendar_availability, and list_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?

The description provides critical usage guidance by specifying the confirmation requirement '(requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar)' for this dangerous action. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer update_calendar_availability versus deletion.

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