WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden. It includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation, and implies partial updates are possible ('contenido o categoria'). However, it lacks disclosure of side effects, whether updates are atomic, what happens when only 'id' is provided, or any rate limiting concerns.

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 compact with two clauses separated by an em-dash. The '[mutation]' tag is efficiently appended. Minor redundancy exists between 'Editar' and 'Edita', but overall structure is front-loaded and wastes no words on tautology.

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 3-parameter mutation tool without output schema, the description is minimally viable. It covers the basic operation but omits critical context: the relationship to 'update_knowledge_snippet', whether content replacement is total or partial, and validation rules. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely restating that content or category can be edited, which aligns with the optional parameters in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 edits content or category of a knowledge snippet using specific verbs ('Edita') and identifies the resource ('snippet de conocimiento'). However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'update_knowledge_snippet', which creates ambiguity for the agent when selecting between them.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (particularly 'update_knowledge_snippet'), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing to obtain the snippet ID first), and no exclusions or error conditions described.

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