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. It effectively discloses the mutation nature via the '[mutation]' tag and emphasizes the dangerous operation aspect requiring confirmation. It could further clarify that existing permissions are overwritten, but the confirmation requirement signals the sensitive nature.

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 and efficiently structured: purpose clause, null-handling explanation, mutation classification, and confirmation requirement. Every segment carries essential information with no redundancy or filler.

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 this is a dangerous mutation operation (as indicated by the confirmation requirement) with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract: what it updates, the null shortcut, and the safety gate. It appropriately compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly framing the operation as a '[mutation]' and emphasizing the confirmation requirement narrative ('para ejecutar'), which helps the agent understand the parameter interaction better than the schema alone.

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 ('Actualiza los permisos de un agente') and resource (agent permissions), distinguishing it from the general update_agent sibling. The Spanish text is precise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 guidance on the critical confirmation flow ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true') and the special null-handling behavior ('Enviar null para dar todos los permisos'). It lacks explicit comparison to update_agent but sufficiently explains when/why to use the confirmation flag.

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