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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the destructive nature ('permanentemente', 'mutation') and the confirmation safety requirement. However, it omits details about irreversibility, side effects on related data, or cleanup behavior, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 optimally concise—front-loaded with the action, immediately qualified with scope ('permanentemente') and safety requirements, with zero redundant words. Every segment earns its place in a single efficient statement.

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?

The tool accepts 12 parameters, yet the description only implicitly addresses task_id and explicitly addresses confirm. It fails to clarify the purpose of the remaining 10 parameters (status, phone, limit, offset, etc.) in the context of a deletion operation, creating significant ambiguity about whether this supports bulk deletion, filtering, or if extraneous parameters should be ignored.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic emphasis by framing the confirmation parameter as a mandatory safety gate ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'), reinforcing its necessity beyond the schema's neutral description. This contextual framing elevates it above baseline.

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 tool permanently deletes a task ('Elimina una tarea permanentemente') with a specific verb and resource. The '[mutation]' tag and 'permanently' qualifier distinguish it from update or soft-delete operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like update_task.

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 a critical safety constraint (requires confirm=true to execute), which functions as a usage gate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose deletion over alternatives like update_task or create_task, offering only implicit differentiation through the 'permanent' and 'mutation' labels.

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