WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the critical draft-state constraint and the '[mutation]' tag indicating write behavior, but lacks disclosure of error conditions (what happens if called on non-draft?), side effects, return values, or partial vs full update semantics.

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?

Efficient single-sentence structure with the constraint front-loaded after the main clause. The leading 'Actualizar campaña —' is slightly redundant with the tool name but serves as a title substitute (since title is null), keeping the description appropriately sized.

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 complexity (16 params, nested objects, mutation) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and draft constraint but omits important mutation context such as partial update behavior, response format, or error handling protocols.

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 across 16 parameters, the schema adequately documents inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what's in the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Modifica') and resource ('campaña de marketing masivo existente'), and critically distinguishes this tool from sibling campaign management tools via the constraint 'solo en estado borrador' (only in draft state), clarifying its specific scope.

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?

Provides clear contextual guardrails with 'solo en estado borrador', implicitly defining when NOT to use the tool (active/archived campaigns). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools (e.g., 'use pause_campaign for active campaigns instead').

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