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. It misleadingly suggests email can be updated. It does not explain that omitted parameters leave existing values unchanged (crucial for a partial update tool with 0 required fields), nor does it disclose any side effects or prerequisites beyond the '[mutation]' tag.

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 single-line format with em-dash is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the verb ('Actualizar'). However, the extreme brevity contributes to the omission of critical context regarding billing fields and email restrictions, making it inappropriately sized 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is dangerously incomplete. It fails to address the billing domain parameters (8 fields), the non-functional email field, the relationship to 'update_billing_info', or the partial-update behavior. The description covers less than 30% of the parameter surface area meaningfully.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions only 3 of the 11 parameters (client_name, client_email, client_phone) and inaccurately at that (regarding email). It adds no semantic value for the 8 billing parameters or the complex 'NO USAR' constraint on email found in the 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 claims the tool updates 'nombre, email y telefono' (name, email, phone), but the schema reveals the email field is explicitly marked 'NO USAR' (do not use) due to OTP requirements, making the claim about email updates misleading. Additionally, the description completely omits the 8 billing-related parameters (billing_name, billing_tax_id, etc.), which constitute the majority of the schema, failing to distinguish this tool's scope from the sibling 'update_billing_info' tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'update_billing_info' tool, despite significant functional overlap in billing fields. Fails to warn that the email parameter should not be used despite listing email updates in the description. No mention that all 11 parameters are optional, allowing partial updates.

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