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 the mutation nature ('[mutation]', 'acción peligrosa'), permanent deletion scope, and the mandatory confirmation flow mechanics (returns requires_confirmation=true initially, must stop and not call again, UI buttons appear automatically). Minor gap: doesn't specify side effects on active workflow sessions or undoability.

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?

While all information is relevant for a destructive action, the description suffers from excessive capitalization and repetition (BORRAR/ELIMINAR listed twice, unir/combinar synonyms). The content is front-loaded but formatting reduces readability despite the justified length.

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?

Excellent completeness given zero annotations and no output schema. It thoroughly explains the confirmation protocol (success=false is step 1, don't retry, wait for UI), mutation tag, and safety prerequisites. Sufficient for correct implementation of the two-phase commit pattern without external docs.

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 coverage is 100% (both id and confirm documented). The description adds valuable workflow context: confirm is for 'ejecución de esta acción peligrosa' and triggers the dangerous action; id must be verified against list_whatsapp_workflows output to confirm 'EXACTAMENTE cual workflow' to delete. Elevates above baseline 3.

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 the tool permanently deletes (Eliminar/BORRAR/ELIMINAR) a WhatsApp workflow. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming update_whatsapp_workflow as the alternative for editing, modifying, or merging workflows, and list_whatsapp_workflows as the prerequisite for confirmation.

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?

Exceptional guidelines with explicit 'NO usar para' prohibitions (editing, testing, merging, etc.) and named alternatives. It mandates calling list_whatsapp_workflows first to confirm the exact ID, and describes the two-step confirmation flow where the first call returns success=false as normal behavior, not an error.

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