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 adequately discloses the mutation type and safety mechanism (confirmation required). However, it lacks details on side effects (what happens to campaign logs, associated contacts, or analytics) and irreversibility implications beyond 'permanently'.

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?

Excellent structure using 'Action — Description [tag] (mechanism)' pattern. Every sentence earns its place: establishes operation, identifies scope, declares mutation type, and specifies safety requirement with zero 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation contract but leaves gaps regarding return behavior, data loss scope (associated records), and prerequisites for this destructive operation.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds valuable semantic context by explaining that confirm=true is required for this 'dangerous action' (acción peligrosa), framing the parameter's purpose beyond the boolean mechanics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Elimina permanentemente') with clear resource ('campaña de marketing masivo'), and distinguishes from siblings like archive_campaign and cancel_campaign by emphasizing the permanent nature of the 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 clear guidance on HOW to invoke safely (requires confirm=true for this 'acción peligrosa'), but lacks explicit guidance on WHEN to use this versus alternatives like archive_campaign or cancel_campaign.

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