WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden effectively. It discloses validation logic (checks for unsubscribed contacts and negative sentiment), mutation nature ('[mutation]'), confirmation requirements, and partial update semantics. Missing minor details like idempotency or error behavior.

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?

Efficiently structured with high information density. Front-loads the action (update configuration) followed by behavioral constraints. The initial 'Actualizar configuracion Smart Follow-up —' is slightly redundant with the tool name but serves as a clear header. Mixed language (Spanish with English '[mutation]') doesn't hinder clarity.

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?

Appropriate for a complex 20-parameter configuration tool. Covers partial updates, safety validations, and confirmation requirements. No output schema exists, but description doesn't need to explain return values. Could marginally improve by explicitly stating this configures automated WhatsApp follow-ups, though this is inferable from parameter names like 'whatsapp_session_id' and 'auto_send_enabled'.

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 has 100% coverage (baseline 3), but description adds crucial semantic context: the partial update pattern ('Solo envia los campos que quieras cambiar') applies globally to all 20 parameters, and specific invocation guidance for the 'confirm' parameter ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar') clarifies its dangerous operation semantics.

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 updates Smart Follow-up configuration using specific verbs ('Actualizar', 'Updates'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `get_smart_followup_config` (retrieval) and `trigger_smart_followup` (execution trigger) by focusing on configuration persistence.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Solo envia los campos que quieras cambiar' (partial update pattern) and 'requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar' (confirmation requirement). However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance versus alternative tools like `trigger_smart_followup`.

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