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. The '[mutation]' tag indicates a write operation, but the description fails to specify whether updates are partial (PATCH-like) or full replacements, error handling for invalid event_ids, idempotency, 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 extremely concise—effectively one sentence with a mutation tag. It is front-loaded with the action ('Actualizar evento') followed by specifics. While appropriately sized for simple tools, it borders on insufficient given the parameter complexity.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits what fields are updatable, validation rules, return values, and error scenarios that an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.

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 only 45% (5 of 11 parameters documented). The description adds no semantic information about the undocumented fields (title, description, start_datetime, end_datetime, assigned_agent_id, all_day) or their expected formats, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 modifies ('Modifica') an existing calendar event ('evento existente del calendario'), using a specific verb and resource. The word 'existing' effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_calendar_event.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'existing' events, suggesting it should not be used for new events. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., create_calendar_event) or state when to prefer this over delete or status update operations.

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