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 and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: it identifies the operation as a mutation ([mutation] tag), specifies the dangerous nature requiring explicit confirmation, and states the account limit constraint. It could improve by describing what happens when the limit is exceeded or whether creation is idempotent.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by constraints and execution requirements. Every element serves a purpose: the function declaration, the configuration scope, the limit constraint, and the confirmation instruction. No redundant text is present despite covering 15 parameters and complex mutation behavior.

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 high complexity (15 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the essential operational context: creation purpose, protocol configuration, account limits, and confirmation requirements. It appropriately relies on the comprehensive schema for parameter details while providing the high-level workflow context missing from structured fields.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirmation workflow ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar') and providing the IMAP/SMTP context that ties together the related host/port/user parameters. It also adds the business constraint (10 account limit) that contextualizes the email_address and label 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 explicitly states the tool creates a new email account with IMAP/SMTP configuration ('Crea una nueva cuenta de correo electronico con configuracion IMAP/SMTP'), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_email_account or update_email_account by specifying the creation action and protocol configuration scope.

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 operational requirements: the max 10 accounts per store limit ('Maximo 10 cuentas por tienda') and the mandatory confirmation pattern ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'). While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the confirmation requirement is a critical usage constraint for this mutation operation.

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