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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly tags the operation as '[mutation]', states the email is deleted, and warns about the confirmation requirement. This covers the critical safety aspects of the destructive operation.

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 in a single sentence with zero waste. Critical information (action, consequence, mutation type, confirmation requirement) is packed concisely at the front without redundant explanations.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral context (deletion, confirmation requirement). With 100% schema coverage handling parameter documentation, the description successfully complements the structured data for an 11-parameter tool.

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 adds specific invocation context for the 'confirm' parameter (that it must be true to execute), but does not clarify why numerous optional composition fields (to, subject, body_text) exist in a cancellation tool or whether they are ignored.

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 cancels a scheduled email ('Cancela un email que estaba programado') and explicitly mentions the deletion consequence ('El email se elimina'). It identifies the specific resource (email) though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'cancel_scheduled_message'.

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 explicit usage guidance for the confirmation requirement ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), establishing the safety prerequisite for this destructive operation. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, it clearly signals when the tool is ready to invoke.

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