WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully flags the operation as a [mutation] and 'peligrosa' (dangerous) requiring confirmation, but fails to disclose reversibility, side effects on the assistant's functionality, or whether the file is permanently deleted versus detached.

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 a single, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Eliminar archivo de Doc-QA') before detailing the mutation nature and confirmation requirement. No redundant or wasted text.

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 2-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the safety mechanism (confirmation) but omits context about the deletion scope (storage vs. assistant detachment) and immediate effects on the Doc-QA system.

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 description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar') but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides for file_id or confirm 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 clearly states the specific action ('Elimina un archivo') and resource ('de un asistente Doc-QA'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_docqa_assistant (which deletes the entire assistant) and delete_knowledge_file (different file system). The '[mutation]' tag explicitly categorizes the operation type.

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 clear procedural guidance on HOW to execute (requiring confirm=true for the 'acción peligrosa'), but lacks guidance on WHEN to use this tool versus alternatives or what the consequences of deletion are for the assistant's knowledge base.

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