WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While it mentions the invoice context, it fails to disclose: whether this is idempotent, what happens to existing billing data not provided (partial vs full replacement), required permissions, or return values. For a 10-parameter mutation tool, this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the action. However, it contains redundancy ('Actualizar datos de facturacion' vs 'Actualiza los datos de facturacion') and the '[mutation]' tag appears to be implementation metadata that doesn't help the agent make decisions.

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 complex mutation tool with 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks: explanation of partial update semantics (all optional params), guidance on which combinations of fields are typically updated together, error handling expectations, or relationship to the broader billing/invoicing workflow.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add semantic information beyond the schema (e.g., not clarifying that all fields are optional, that partial updates are supported, or providing examples). It also doesn't explain the relationship between billing fields and client fields.

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 tool updates billing data ('Actualiza los datos de facturacion') specifically for invoices ('para las facturas'). It distinguishes from siblings like update_business_info and update_contact_info by specifying the billing/invoicing context. However, the '[mutation]' tag appears to be internal metadata noise rather than helpful description text.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_business_info or update_contact_info. No mention that all 10 parameters are optional (0 required), which is critical information for partial update scenarios. No prerequisites or conditions specified.

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