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 explicitly tags the operation as [mutation] and warns that it is a dangerous action ('acción peligrosa') requiring explicit confirmation. It could improve by stating whether deletion is permanent or reversible.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The format 'Action — Explanation [mutation] (safety requirement)' front-loads the purpose, follows with mechanism, tags behavior, and ends with critical invocation details. Zero waste despite covering safety constraints.

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 destructive 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the mutation nature and confirmation requirement. Missing minor details like explicit irreversibility statement or cross-reference to list_conversation_files for UUID discovery, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the confirm parameter requirement in the main flow ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), reinforcing the safety-critical nature of this boolean flag beyond the schema's standalone description.

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 verb 'Elimina' (Deletes) with clear resource 'archivo compartido en una conversacion' (shared file in a conversation). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool delete_conversation_message by specifying 'archivo' (file) versus message deletion.

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?

It provides critical safety guidance that confirmation is required ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'), flagging this as a dangerous operation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like list_conversation_files or download_conversation_file.

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