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 and performs well. It discloses the mutation nature ([mutation] tag), the destructive aspect requiring confirmation, and the specific data behavior (source messages/notes move to destination). It could be improved by noting whether the operation is reversible or describing error states.

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 clear header, immediate explanation of the merge operation, data flow details, account constraints, and safety warning. Every sentence delivers essential information without redundancy, appropriate for a destructive operation requiring careful handling.

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 destructive mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential safety information (confirmation flag), behavioral constraints (same-account only), and data flow. It appropriately focuses on pre-execution requirements given the lack of output schema.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema. It clarifies the relationship between thread_id and target_thread_id through the 'origen' (source) and 'destino' (destination) concepts, and emphasizes the safety-critical 'confirm' parameter requirement in the main description text.

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 specific action (fusionar/merge) and resource (email threads), explaining exactly what happens to the data (messages and notes move from source to destination). It distinguishes itself from siblings like `assign_email_thread` or `email_thread_action` by specifying the merge behavior and data movement.

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 clear constraints for usage ('Solo se pueden fusionar hilos de la misma cuenta de email') and explicitly notes the confirmation requirement ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for cross-account thread operations or other thread management scenarios.

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