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. It successfully communicates the mutation nature ('[mutation]') and the mandatory confirmation safety mechanism ('confirm=true para ejecutar'). It also clarifies the dual operational mode (reply vs new email). It lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or delivery timing, but covers the critical safety aspects required for a destructive 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 compact and front-loaded, using an em-dash to separate the action title from the explanation. All elements serve a purpose: the mutation tag, the dual-mode explanation, and the confirmation parenthetical. It is appropriately dense for a tool with safety implications, though the parenthetical could be separated for 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?

Given the 10 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential selection criteria: what the tool does (send email), how it behaves (mutation requiring confirmation), and its dual mode capability. It omits error handling or return value details, but these are less critical given the schema completeness and the tool's straightforward purpose.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema. Specifically, it emphasizes the confirmation requirement ('confirm=true') as a safety gate rather than just a parameter, and reinforces the thread_id=0 logic for new emails mentioned in the schema descriptions.

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 sends email replies or composes new emails using specific verbs ('Enviar', 'compone'). It distinguishes between replying to existing threads versus creating new ones (via thread_id=0 logic implied by 'hilo de email existente o compone un nuevo email'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `generate_email_draft` or `create_scheduled_message` that handle email composition without immediate sending.

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 explicit usage constraints regarding the confirmation requirement ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'), which is critical for this mutation operation. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `generate_email_draft` (for unsent drafts) or `create_scheduled_message` (for delayed sending), leaving the agent to infer from the 'mutation' tag.

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