WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes '[mutation]' to explicitly flag the destructive nature, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permanence (hard vs soft delete), error behavior if IDs are invalid, or side effects on the parent thread.

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 appropriately brief with two clauses plus a mutation tag. There is slight redundancy between 'Eliminar nota interna de email' and 'Elimina una nota interna', but the structure is front-loaded and efficient with no unnecessary filler.

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 tool's simplicity (3 primitive parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core operation but omits return value description, error scenarios, or domain context about what constitutes an 'internal note' versus regular email content.

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 mentions 'un hilo de email' and 'nota' which align with thread_id and note_id, but does not add syntax details, format examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verbs ('Eliminar'/'Elimina') and clearly identifies the resource (internal email note/email thread). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like add_email_note and list_email_notes through explicit deletion language.

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 implies usage through the action verb (delete/remove), indicating it should be used when removing internal notes. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., needing valid thread_id/note_id), or contrasts with alternatives like add_email_note.

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