WAzion MCP Server

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

Includes '[mutation]' tag indicating write behavior, but with no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose reversibility, whether partial updates are supported (all parameters are optional), side effects, or validation constraints.

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 two sentences and a tag. Front-loaded with the action and resource. The '[mutation]' tag is slightly tacked on but doesn't significantly detract from the concise flow.

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?

Adequate for a simple update tool, but fails to note that all parameters are optional (0 required), which is critical behavioral context for an update operation. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 and enums documented, the baseline is 3. The description lists the three updatable fields but adds no additional semantic context (validation rules, format requirements) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it updates business information, specifically listing the three fields affected (business type, sale type, description). This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_business_name by scope, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 rationale for use ('helps AI understand your business better and give more relevant answers'), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over other profile configuration tools.

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