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. The '[mutation]' tag indicates a write operation, but the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared, if the operation is idempotent, error handling when the ID doesn't exist, or what the response contains.

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 extremely concise (9 words) and front-loaded with the action. The structure 'Title — Explanation [tag]' is efficient with no wasted words. However, it borders on underspecification given the complexity of a 9-parameter mutation operation.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: partial update semantics (PATCH vs PUT behavior), return value structure, and error conditions. The agent cannot infer whether omitted fields are preserved or reset to defaults.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all 9 parameters (id, nickname, email, permissions, etc.) well-documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the '[mutation]' tag, meeting the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verbs ('Editar', 'Modifica') and clearly identifies the resource (existing agent data). The word 'existente' effectively distinguishes this from create_agent. However, it doesn't clarify the distinction from save_agent_permissions, which also updates agent data, preventing a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the schema description for permissions_json mentions it is an 'Alternativa a save_agent_permissions', the main description omits this critical context, leaving agents to guess which permission-updating method to use.

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