WAzion MCP Server

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

While the description includes '[mutation]' indicating side effects, it fails to disclose what happens to the snippet NOT kept (deleted, archived, or merged?). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and lacks critical behavioral details about the destructive aspects of the 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 brief and front-loaded, but the '[mutation]' tag appears to be metadata leaking into the description text rather than natural language. The Spanish text is appropriate but the formatting with the bracketed annotation reduces 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 mutation operation affecting knowledge snippets, the description inadequately explains the outcome state (what happens to the rejected snippet, conflict status changes, or return values). No output schema exists to compensate, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an agent determining tool selection.

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' and 'ID del snippet a mantener'), the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for complete schemas.

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 resolves conflicts between knowledge snippets by choosing which one to keep ('eligiendo cual mantener'), adding the specific mechanism beyond the tool name. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'keep_both_knowledge_snippets' by emphasizing the selection of a single snippet to retain.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'keep_both_knowledge_snippets' or 'reject_knowledge_snippet'. The description implies usage for conflict resolution but doesn't clarify decision criteria for choosing this resolution strategy over others.

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