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: (1) mutation nature via '[mutation]' tag, (2) destructive scope by mentioning deletion of 'todos sus recursos asociados', and (3) safety classification as 'acción peligrosa' requiring confirmation. It does not mention recovery options or permanence, preventing a 5.

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 followed by a single comprehensive sentence. Minor redundancy exists between 'Eliminar asistente Doc-QA' and 'Elimina un asistente Doc-QA', but every element serves a purpose: resource identification, behavioral tagging, scope clarification, and safety instruction.

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 delete operation without output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: target resource (assistant), external dependencies (OpenAI resources), and safety mechanism (confirm flag). It could be improved by specifying what 'recursos asociados' entails (e.g., vector stores, files) and whether deletion is irreversible.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage establishing baseline 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the confirmation requirement '(requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true)' which reinforces the semantic meaning of the 'confirm' parameter as a safety gate rather than just a boolean flag.

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 'asistente Doc-QA' and scope 'todos sus recursos asociados en OpenAI'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_docqa_assistant, update_docqa_assistant, and list_docqa_assistants through its explicit destructive 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 the critical prerequisite 'requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true' which guides safe execution, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like update_docqa_assistant (for modifications) or create_docqa_assistant. The 'acción peligrosa' warning implies cautious usage but doesn't specify selection criteria.

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