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. It correctly identifies the operation as a [mutation] and explains the functional consequence (expiration protection). However, it omits whether the toggle is idempotent, what return value indicates the new state, error conditions (e.g., invalid snippet ID), or whether this action is reversible.

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 a leading summary, functional explanation, and behavioral tag. The format 'Action — Explanation [mutation]' is front-loaded and wastes no words. Minor deduction for the slight redundancy between the leading phrase 'Alternar snippet permanente' and the following sentence.

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 low complexity (single integer parameter, no output schema, boolean toggle operation), the description provides sufficient context by explaining the business logic (expiration protection). For this simple tool type, the combination of schema documentation and the description's functional explanation adequately covers usage needs without requiring extensive additional detail.

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 (id: 'ID del snippet'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic context about the ID format, where to obtain it, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides, which is appropriate given the schema completeness.

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 identifies the action (toggle/alternar), the resource (snippet), and the specific effect (protects from expiration due to age). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_knowledge_snippet or approve_knowledge_snippet by specifying the 'permanent' state change. However, it assumes familiarity with what 'snippet' refers to without explicitly naming it as a 'knowledge snippet'.

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 implies when to use the tool (to prevent expiration of snippets due to age), providing the 'why' behind the feature. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it compared to alternatives like update_knowledge_snippet or edit_knowledge_snippet, and doesn't mention prerequisites like snippet ownership or existing state.

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