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. It discloses the mutation nature via the '[mutation]' tag and lists the specific enum-like status values, but omits details about error handling (e.g., invalid event_id), side effects, or return value structure.

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 the action front-loaded ('Cambiar estado de evento'), followed immediately by the explanation and status options. No sentences are wasted; the information density is optimal for the tool's 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?

Given this is a simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning the success/failure behavior or side effects (e.g., notifications triggered by status changes) 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?

While the schema has 100% coverage documenting the technical parameter names and English status codes, the description adds value by providing Spanish translations for the status values (pendiente/confirmed, etc.), clarifying semantic meaning for Spanish-speaking agents beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 ('Cambia') with the resource ('estado de un evento de calendario') and explicitly lists the five valid status values (pendiente, confirmado, cancelado, completado, no-show), clearly distinguishing it from the general 'update_calendar_event' sibling tool which handles broader field 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 '[mutation]' tag implies this is a write operation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this specific status-update tool versus the general 'update_calendar_event' tool, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. Usage must be inferred from the specificity of the status parameter.

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