WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses critical behavioral traits: irreversibility ('no se puede deshacer'), mutation nature ('[mutation]' tag), and the confirmation safety gate. Missing minor details like side effects on existing emails processed by the rule or idempotency behavior (what happens if called twice).

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?

Efficiently packs critical safety information into a compact description. The opening 'Eliminar regla de email' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the description immediately follows with the irreversibility warning and confirmation syntax, effectively front-loading the most important risk information.

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 three-parameter operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers essential safety context (irreversibility, confirmation mechanism). Could be improved by explicitly referencing list_email_rules as the source for obtaining the 'id' parameter, but adequately prepares the agent for the high-stakes nature of the operation.

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 with clear Spanish descriptions for all three parameters (action, id, confirm). The tool description reinforces the confirmation parameter usage but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Description clearly states 'Elimina una regla de email' (Deletes an email rule), providing specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings create_email_rule, update_email_rule, and list_email_rules by specifying the permanent deletion operation versus creation, modification, or listing.

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?

Provides explicit invocation guidance through the confirmation requirement '(requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar)', explaining the mandatory safety mechanism for this dangerous operation. However, lacks explicit comparison to update_email_rule as an alternative when modification is preferred over deletion, or prerequisites like needing the ID from list_email_rules.

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