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 indicates this is a mutation requiring confirmation ('acción peligrosa'). However, it omits whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, affects recurring event series, or triggers notifications to attendees—critical behavioral context for a destructive 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 efficiently structured with no wasted words: it opens with the action identifier ('Eliminar evento'), states the core function, labels it as mutation, and immediately provides the critical confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place in the agent's decision-making process.

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 12-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the interaction between event_id and the numerous optional filter parameters (are they for bulk deletion, validation, or fallback identification?), and provides no indication of success/failure return values or side effects post-deletion.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds specific semantic context for the 'confirm' parameter (explaining it validates this dangerous action) but does not clarify why 11 optional parameters (date filters, phone, title) exist alongside the required event_id, leaving ambiguity about deletion-by-criteria vs verification logic.

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 deletes a calendar event using the specific verb 'Elimina' and resource 'evento'. It distinguishes from siblings like create_calendar_event or update_calendar_event through the deletion action and [mutation] tag, though it could explicitly clarify this is a permanent deletion vs. soft deletion.

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 safety guidance requiring confirm=true for execution, which informs the agent about the confirmation protocol. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. update_calendar_event (cancellation) or which of the 12 available parameters are necessary for different deletion scenarios.

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