WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it discloses the mechanism ('activando los dos'), it fails to explain the resulting state (e.g., whether the conflict is marked resolved, if both snippets remain active simultaneously, or potential duplication issues).

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 consists of two sentences separated by an em-dash, but the first sentence ('Mantener ambos snippets en conflicto') largely restates the tool name, creating redundancy. The '[mutation]' tag appears to be metadata leakage that doesn't serve the description.

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 single-parameter mutation tool without output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context (conflict resolution via activation). However, it lacks post-condition details or side-effect warnings that would be necessary for a mutation operation of this type.

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 description coverage ('ID del snippet en conflicto'), the baseline is 3. The description references 'snippets en conflicto' which aligns with the parameter semantics but does not add additional details about constraints (e.g., that the ID must refer to an active conflict) or format beyond the schema.

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 keeps both conflicting snippets ('Mantiene ambos snippets en conflicto') and specifies the mechanism ('activando los dos'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'resolve_knowledge_conflict' by explicitly specifying 'ambos' (both) rather than choosing one.

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 context by specifying this is for snippets 'en conflicto' (in conflict), suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'resolve_knowledge_conflict' or other sibling tools like 'approve_knowledge_snippet'.

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