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 of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates this is a mutation via the '[mutation]' tag, but fails to disclose whether partial updates are supported (critical since only rule_id is required), what errors occur if the rule doesn't exist, or what the operation returns.

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 with the action front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists in the structure ('Actualizar regla de disponibilidad — Actualiza...' essentially repeats the title concept), but every word contributes to meaning with no filler content.

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 5-parameter update operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the partial update behavior (implied by single required parameter), doesn't mention return values, error conditions, or side effects on calendar events that might use this rule.

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 significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (rule_id, start_time, end_time, label, is_available are all clearly documented in the schema itself).

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 specific action (actualiza/updates) and resource (regla de disponibilidad/availability rule), and distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying 'existing' rule (differentiating from create_calendar_availability) and 'availability rule' (differentiating from update_calendar_event or update_calendar_service).

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 create_calendar_availability or delete_calendar_availability. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The '[mutation]' tag hints at behavior but doesn't guide selection between alternatives.

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