WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses key behavioral traits: permanent destruction, mutation nature, and the confirmation safety mechanism. It appropriately flags this as a dangerous action requiring explicit confirmation.

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 structured with two high-value segments: the action statement and the safety requirement. Every element serves a purpose—no filler text, clearly front-loaded with the permanent deletion warning.

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 operation with confirmation pattern, the description adequately covers the essential safety-critical context (permanent deletion, confirmation requirement) and parameter semantics. Minor gap in describing error states or cascade effects, but sufficient given the schema clarity.

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 coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that confirm=true is required to execute this 'dangerous action,' clarifying the parameter's purpose as a safety guard 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 resource 'snippet de conocimiento' (knowledge snippet) and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'permanentemente' (permanently) and tagging it as [mutation], clearly differentiating it from edit_knowledge_snippet or approve_knowledge_snippet alternatives.

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?

While it provides critical execution guidance (requiring confirm=true), it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like edit_knowledge_snippet. The permanent nature is implied but the description doesn't explicitly state when to choose deletion over editing or archiving.

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