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. The '[mutation]' tag discloses the write nature of the operation, and 'Restaura... a la lista principal' clarifies the effect. However, it omits error conditions (what if the campaign isn't archived?), reversibility, or side effects.

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?

Extremely concise with zero waste. The em-dash structure front-loads the action and efficiently separates the operation name from its effect. Every element—including the '[mutation]' classifier—earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is appropriately complete. It explains the core behavior adequately, though mentioning the prerequisite archived state or relationship to archive_campaign would improve it further.

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 description coverage ('ID de la campaña a desarchivar'), the parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Restaura') + resource ('campaña archivada') + scope ('a la lista principal'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like archive_campaign, update_campaign, or delete_campaign by specifying the exact state change being performed.

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 usage (when you need to restore an archived campaign), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., 'only works on archived campaigns'), or explicit mention of the inverse operation (archive_campaign) as an alternative.

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