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. The '[mutation]' tag indicates a write operation, and listing optional fields implies partial updates are supported. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid ID), return values, or side effects.

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 follows a clear structure with a title-like opener, main verb statement, and capability list. It is appropriately brief with no unnecessary fluff, though the opening 'Actualizar regla de email' slightly restates the tool name before the dash.

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 a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate high-level context about what the tool modifies. However, given the lack of annotations, it should ideally clarify the ID requirement explicitly and indicate what constitutes a successful operation.

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 the fields that can be modified (nombre, prioridad, estado, condiciones, acciones), confirming the schema's intent, but adds no additional syntax guidance or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 updates existing email rules and lists the specific modifiable fields (name, priority, status, conditions, actions). It implicitly distinguishes from 'create_email_rule' by specifying 'existing' rules, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 phrase 'Actualiza una regla de email existente' implies the tool requires an existing rule (vs creating new), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites like required permissions, or explicit alternatives for different scenarios.

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