WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating write operations and discloses the text file type restriction. However, critical behavioral details like the re-indexing side effect and file replacement behavior are documented only in the parameter schema descriptions, not the main description.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose (updating knowledge files) and immediately follows with constraints (text file editing), making every word earn its place.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and constraints but relies heavily on the schema for detailed parameter behavior. It adequately covers the operation's intent but leaves behavioral side effects (re-indexing) to the schema documentation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds context by listing the updatable fields (title, description, content) and emphasizing the text file constraint, but does not significantly expand on parameter semantics 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 uses specific verbs ('Actualizar', 'Cambia') with clear resource ('archivo de conocimiento') and scope (title, description, content). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like create_knowledge_file and delete_knowledge_file by specifying the update operation.

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 implies flexibility ('y/o' suggesting combinations of fields) and mentions the text file constraint for content editing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_knowledge_file or delete_knowledge_file, and the critical guidance about when NOT to send the content parameter resides in the schema rather than the description.

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