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 includes a '[mutation]' tag indicating write behavior and explains that rules process 'emails entrantes' (incoming emails). However, it omits critical behavioral details such as whether rules activate immediately, potential conflicts with existing rules, or error handling.

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 prefix, clear function statement, and capability examples. The '[mutation]' tag is slightly informal but serves a necessary signaling purpose given the lack of annotations. No redundant sentences.

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 tool with 5 parameters (including complex nested arrays for conditions/actions) and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the core concept but leaves gaps regarding rule limits, activation delays, or validation behavior that would help an agent handle edge cases.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context by mapping abstract 'conditions' to concrete examples (remitente, asunto) and 'actions' to business outcomes (archivar, etiquetar, asignar agente), helping agents understand the purpose of the nested array structures.

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 it creates a new automatic rule for processing incoming emails, specifying the resource (email rules) and action (create). The use of 'nueva' (new) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'update_email_rule', though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

While the description lists capabilities (filtering by sender/subject, actions like archiving/tagging), it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'update_email_rule' or 'delete_email_rule'. The user must infer from 'crea' that this is for new rules only.

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