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. It discloses the write nature via '[mutation]' and visibility scope via 'Solo visible para agentes', but omits other behavioral traits like whether notes are editable/deletable, potential rate limits, or what confirmation/ID is returned upon creation.

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 efficiently structured with a title-like phrase, core action statement, visibility constraint, and mutation tag. There is slight redundancy between 'Anadir nota interna a hilo de email' and 'Agrega una nota interna a un hilo de email', but overall it is appropriately sized with no extraneous content.

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 the tool's straightforward purpose (appending a note) and complete input schema, the description covers the essential context (internal visibility, mutation nature). While it lacks details about the return value or side effects, this is acceptable for a simple creation tool without an output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (action, thread_id, note_text are all documented). The description adds no explicit parameter guidance, but given the complete schema coverage, this meets the baseline expectation without penalty.

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 ('Agrega') and resources ('nota interna', 'hilo de email') to clearly define the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_customer_comment by specifying 'Solo visible para agentes' (only visible to agents), clarifying this is an internal agent-only note versus a customer-facing interaction.

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 visibility constraint 'Solo visible para agentes' provides essential usage context, implying when to use this versus public comment tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar siblings like add_customer_comment or save_plugin_conversation_note, or prerequisites like requiring an existing thread_id.

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