WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating write behavior and documents the unassignment pattern. However, it lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., what happens if already assigned), idempotency guarantees, or error conditions that would be critical for a mutation tool without annotation safety hints.

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 sized at three short sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It suffers from slight redundancy between the em-dash title fragment and the main sentence ('Asignar hilo...' vs 'Asigna un hilo...'), but overall wastes little space and places the mutation tag appropriately at the end.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary assignment/unassignment use case adequately but minimally. It omits behavioral context like concurrency handling, notification side effects, or validation rules that would help an agent handle error scenarios or confirm successful operations.

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 assign_to=null pattern, but this merely restates what the schema already documents ('Omitir o null para desasignar'). It adds no additional semantic context about parameter formats, valid agent ID ranges, or the relationship between assign_to and agent_hash parameters.

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 the tool assigns an email thread to a specific agent using the verb 'Asigna' and resources 'hilo de email' and 'agente'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling `assign_calendar_agent` by specifying 'email' and from generic `email_thread_action` by focusing on assignment, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the generic action wrapper.

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 specific usage guidance for unassignment ('Usar assign_to=null para desasignar'), which is helpful since there is no separate unassign_email_thread tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic `email_thread_action` sibling or prerequisites like required permissions.

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