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 successfully discloses key behavioral traits: it is a [mutation], it destructively invalidates the previous token, and it requires explicit confirmation as a safety guardrail. It does not mention side effects like existing session disconnection or rate limits.

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 zero waste: 'Action — Explanation [classification] (requirement)'. Every segment earns its place, front-loading the verb and clearly segmenting behavioral warnings.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It covers the critical safety and invalidation behaviors, though it could mention the immediate effect on active plugin sessions or the return value format.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the confirm=true requirement but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for plugin_type (chat vs product-qa) or the confirmation mechanism.

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 (regenerar/generates a new token), the resource (plugin token), and scope (para los plugins). It distinguishes from siblings like regenerate_api_key and regenerate_docqa_token by specifying 'plugin' and implying the chat/product-qa context via the enum parameter.

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 provides explicit safety guidance by stating the action invalidates the previous token and requires confirmation (confirm=true) to execute. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus regenerate_docqa_token or general API key regeneration.

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