WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While the '[mutation]' tag indicates this is a write operation, the description fails to mention error conditions (e.g., campaign not found), reversibility, side effects, or what determines success/failure.

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 an em-dash separating the title fragment from the explanation. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Minor deduction for the slight redundancy of starting with 'Reanudar campana' which restates the tool name.

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 single-parameter mutation tool without output schema, the description covers the basic action and target state. However, given the complexity of campaign lifecycle management (evidenced by numerous sibling tools like approve, cancel, start), it should specify return values or error handling to be considered 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 its single parameter (campaign_id). The description mentions 'campana' which aligns with the parameter, but does not add syntax details, examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 it resumes ('reanuda') a mass marketing campaign ('campana de marketing masivo') that was paused ('que fue pausada'). This implicitly distinguishes it from start_campaign (for new campaigns) and pause_campaign (the inverse action). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to guide selection.

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 phrase 'que fue pausada' implies the prerequisite state (paused), giving implicit context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., 'do not use on active campaigns') and does not name alternatives like start_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.