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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively flags the operation as a '[mutation]' that deletes authentication data and requires explicit confirmation for the 'acción peligrosa' (dangerous action), adequately warning about its destructive nature.

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 the action front-loaded ('Desconectar WhatsApp —'). Information is dense but purposeful, covering behavior, parameters, and safety requirements in a single sentence without redundant fluff.

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 the tool's medium complexity (2 parameters with conditional logic) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential destructive behavior, cross-references `get_whatsapp_status` implicitly via the schema, and explains the safety guardrail (confirm parameter).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the conditional requirement for `session_id` and the confirmation need for `confirm`, but adds minimal new semantic information beyond what the schema already clearly documents.

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 disconnects a WhatsApp session and deletes authentication data using specific verbs ('Desconecta', 'elimina'). While it effectively describes the action, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool `delete_whatsapp_session`.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance on when `session_id` is required (multiple numbers) and explicitly states the confirmation requirement (`confirm=true`) for this dangerous action. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or 'when-not-to-use' scenarios.

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