WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation and specifies it targets existing resources, which is essential given no annotations are provided. However, it lacks critical behavioral context such as error handling for invalid service_ids, side effects on existing scheduled appointments when durations change, or idempotency guarantees.

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 brief but contains redundancy by starting with 'Actualizar servicio de calendario' (which mirrors the tool name) before the em-dash. While the substantive content after the dash is efficient, the structure could be improved by front-loading the specific behavioral description without the initial tautology.

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 high schema coverage and absence of an output schema, the description provides minimally adequate context for the 10-parameter update operation. However, for a mutation tool without annotations, it should elaborate on operational implications, such as whether modifying duration_minutes affects existing bookings or if partial updates are supported.

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 input parameters are fully self-documenting and the description appropriately avoids redundancy. The description meets the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas by not repeating parameter details already clearly defined in the structured schema.

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 updates properties of an existing calendar service/appointment type using specific verbs ('Actualiza') and identifies the target resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools by specifying 'existente' (existing), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools like create_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives such as create_calendar_service or delete_calendar_service, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining the service_id from list_calendar_services first. Agents must infer proper usage from sibling names alone.

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