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 but only adds the '[mutation]' tag to indicate state modification, without explaining partial update semantics, error conditions, or side effects on existing scheduled notifications. It fails to disclose whether unspecified parameters retain their values or are reset to defaults.

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 consists of a single efficient line separated by a dash, though it exhibits slight redundancy by restating 'Actualizar' and 'Actualiza' (both meaning Update). The inclusion of the '[mutation]' tag is valuable and concise, keeping the overall structure appropriately brief.

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?

As a mutation tool with six parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description inadequately explains critical operational aspects such as the partial update behavior, required notification_id sourcing, or return value structure. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter documentation without addressing the tool's behavioral contract or prerequisites.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with Spanish labels for all six parameters (e.g., 'ID de la notificacion', 'Canal de envio'), so the schema itself documents the parameters adequately. The description adds no additional semantic context, examples, or format constraints beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 the specific verb 'Actualiza' (Updates) and identifies the resource as 'notificacion automatica de calendario' (automatic calendar notification), clearly positioning it within the calendar notification CRUD operations alongside siblings like create_calendar_notification and delete_calendar_notification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update_* tools such as update_calendar_event or clarify the scope of the update operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_calendar_notification or delete_calendar_notification, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining the notification_id from list_calendar_notifications. There is no indication of when partial updates are preferred over full replacement or deletion.

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