WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. The '[mutation]' tag discloses it modifies state, and 'IA' indicates AI involvement, but it lacks details on what gets returned (since no output schema exists), whether the draft is persisted, or what context the AI uses from the 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 efficiently structured with a title-like phrase followed by an em-dash explanation. It avoids redundancy with the schema. The '[mutation]' tag at the end is slightly awkward but doesn't significantly detract from the front-loaded clarity.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the core function but should ideally describe the output behavior (returned content vs. saved draft) and side effects given the lack of structured output metadata.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'hilo de email' reinforcing thread_id and implies instructions guide the AI, but adds no syntax details, validation rules, or examples 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 clearly states it generates an email draft using AI ('Genera un borrador de respuesta usando IA') for an email thread ('hilo de email'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying AI generation and draft creation (vs. sending), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with send_email_reply.

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 'borrador' (draft) suggesting it's for creating content before sending, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus send_email_reply or create_scheduled_message. No prerequisites (e.g., reading thread first) are mentioned.

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