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. It successfully discloses this is a mutation ('[mutation]') and that the duplicated campaign starts in draft state ('en estado borrador'). However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the original campaign is affected, or if the operation is reversible.

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 extremely concise with zero waste—single sentence structure using an em-dash to separate the action from the explanation, with the mutation tag efficiently appended. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation tool without output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the essential behavioral nuance that the copy is created in draft state, which is critical for an agent to understand the tool's effect, though it could mention the original campaign remains unchanged.

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 for the single parameter (campaign_id). The description does not add syntax details or examples beyond the schema, but given the high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter semantics.

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 it creates a copy of an existing campaign ('Crea una copia de una campaña existente'), distinguishing it from create_campaign which would create a new campaign from scratch. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to contrast when to use each.

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 implies when to use the tool (to duplicate an existing campaign) and mentions the result is created in draft state ('en estado borrador'), but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling tools to use instead (e.g., create_campaign for new campaigns).

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