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. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly where the name appears (marketing messages, WhatsApp opt-out page) and marks the operation as [mutation], but omits details about reversibility, validation behavior, 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?

The description is efficiently structured with zero waste: a Spanish action phrase, an em-dash, the core explanation, specific display contexts, and the [mutation] tag. Every element earns its place in a single 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool without output schema, the description is appropriately complete. It explains the mutation's purpose, the parameter's effect, and the visibility scope. Missing output schema documentation is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage describing 'business_name' as 'Nombre del negocio (max 255 caracteres)', the description adds crucial semantic context that this is specifically the 'public' name ('nombre publico'), distinguishing it from internal or legal business names. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's generic description.

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 the 'nombre publico' (public name) of the business, specifying it appears in marketing messages and WhatsApp opt-out pages. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tool 'update_business_info', the specific scope (public display name) implicitly distinguishes it from general business information updates.

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 contextual clues about when to use this (when changing the business name displayed to customers), but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives. The [mutation] tag hints at write behavior but doesn't constitute full usage guidance.

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