WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical behaviors: it tags the operation as [mutation], explains that CRM records are anonymized rather than deleted, and documents the confirmation gate safety mechanism. It lacks details on reversibility or return values, but covers the essential behavioral traits.

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 optimally structured with zero waste: the first sentence establishes the action and legal basis, the second clarifies the anonymization behavior, and the parenthetical efficiently conveys the mutation type and confirmation requirement. Every element 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?

Given the high-stakes GDPR context and absence of annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the regulatory basis, mechanical behavior (anonymization vs deletion), and safety mechanisms. It could be improved by describing the return value or success indicators, but the core context is complete.

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 both parameters (phone and confirm). The description reinforces the confirm=true requirement but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Elimina todos los datos personales'), the regulatory context ('GDPR Art. 17 - Derecho al olvido'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gdpr_export_customer_data by specifying deletion/anonymization versus export.

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?

It provides clear usage constraints by specifying the GDPR right-to-be-forgotten context and explicitly stating the confirmation requirement ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with gdpr_export_customer_data for cases where the user might only need to view rather than delete data.

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