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 marks the operation as [mutation] and discloses the confirmation safety requirement, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether deletion is permanent, if recovery is possible, or what happens to dependent knowledge snippets that reference the deleted file.

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 efficiently packs multiple critical details (action, scope restriction, mutation type, confirmation protocol) into a single sentence with clear parenthetical grouping. The em-dash structure separates the title fragment from the descriptive content effectively.

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 has only 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential safety mechanisms (confirmation gate, system file restriction) for a destructive operation. It appropriately omits return value details which are typically standardized for delete operations.

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?

While the input schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds valuable procedural context for the 'confirm' parameter, explaining that confirm=true is required to actually execute the deletion ('para ejecutar'), which complements the schema's description of the parameter's purpose.

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') and resource ('archivo de la base de conocimiento'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_knowledge_snippet or delete_docqa_file by explicitly scoping to knowledge base files and noting the restriction against system files.

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 context on when NOT to use the tool ('no permite eliminar archivos de sistema') and explicitly states the prerequisite confirmation requirement ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for system file deletion or related operations.

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