WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only offers the [mutation] tag to indicate write behavior. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether omitted fields are preserved or nulled, how nested JSON objects (config_design, config_texts) should be structured, or what response to expect.

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 appropriately brief at one sentence plus a tag, front-loaded with the action and resource. The em-dash structure efficiently separates the title-like phrase from the behavioral description.

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 13 parameters (including complex nested objects) and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It relies on the comprehensive schema for parameter details but misses opportunity to clarify partial update semantics or relationships between language_mode and language_fixed parameters.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying configuration modification, 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 clearly states it modifies (Modifica) the configuration of an existing (existente) Doc Q&A assistant, distinguishing it from creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_docqa_assistant or delete_docqa_assistant.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing assistant_id from list_docqa_assistants (though this appears in the parameter schema).

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