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. While it correctly identifies the operation as a '[mutation]', it fails to disclose idempotency (can you mark an already-read thread?), side effects (notifications triggered?), or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'hilo' (thread) versus single email is the only behavioral context provided.

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 extremely concise with two brief clauses separated by an em-dash. It is front-loaded with the action ('Marcar email como leido') and wastes no words. However, the phrasing is slightly redundant (repeating 'marcar'/'marca' concepts) and could be more efficient.

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 this is a simple single-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the mutation nature and target resource. However, for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the expected outcome or return value to be fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage ('ID del hilo'), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the ID refers to a thread ('hilo de email'), aligning with the schema, but adds no additional syntax guidance, format details, 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 the tool marks an email thread as read ('Marca un hilo de email como leido'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the generic 'email_thread_action' sibling tool or clarify why to use this specific mutation over other thread manipulation options.

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 includes the '[mutation]' tag, implicitly signaling this is for state modification, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'email_thread_action' or 'snooze_email_thread'. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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