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 disclosure burden. It includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation and lists which fields are modifiable, but fails to disclose error behaviors (what happens if task_id not found), whether partial updates are supported, reversibility, or side effects. It meets minimum viable disclosure but lacks depth for safe mutation invocation.

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 optimally structured with a front-loaded action phrase ('Actualizar tarea'), em-dash separator, immediate purpose statement, specific field enumeration, and mutation classification. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy or waste, achieving high information density in a single sentence.

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 11 parameters (high complexity) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the input intent but leaves significant gaps regarding return values, success/failure indicators, and post-update state changes. For a mutation tool with no structured behavioral metadata, the description should provide more operational context to compensate.

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 91%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by grouping the logical update fields (estado, texto, prioridad, fecha limite, asignacion) conceptually, mapping them to schema properties. However, it completely ignores several confusing parameters present in the schema (limit, offset, include_completed, phone) that appear misplaced for an update operation, missing an opportunity to clarify or contextualize these anomalies.

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 'Modifica una tarea existente' (Modifies an existing task) with specific verbs and resource identification. It explicitly distinguishes from create/delete operations by emphasizing 'existing' and lists specific editable fields (estado, texto, prioridad, fecha limite, asignacion), providing clear scope differentiation from sibling tools like create_task or delete_task.

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 'tarea existente' (existing task) implicitly signals this requires a pre-existing task ID, distinguishing it from create_task. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., valid task_id required), or explicit comparisons to sibling alternatives like create_task or delete_task that would help an agent select the correct tool.

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