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 of behavioral disclosure. While it includes the [mutation] tag to indicate a write operation, it fails to mention that this supports partial updates (only calendar_id is required), does not describe the return value, and omits error handling behavior (e.g., what happens if the calendar_id doesn't exist).

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 optimally concise with a clear 'Purpose — Details' structure. The single sentence efficiently communicates the operation, target resource, and specific fields without redundancy. Every element 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 100% schema coverage and clear property enumeration, the description is sufficient for a 5-parameter update tool. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could be strengthened by mentioning the partial update capability or return value to achieve full completeness.

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, the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description lists the updatable fields but does not add semantic meaning, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 ('Actualiza') and resource ('calendario'), and explicitly lists the mutable properties (nombre, descripcion, color, estado por defecto). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_calendar_event or update_calendar_availability by specifying these are calendar-level metadata properties.

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?

While the [mutation] tag and property list provide implicit context for when to use the tool (updating calendar metadata), there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like create_calendar_service or delete_calendar. It lacks 'when-not' guidance or prerequisites.

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