WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the full burden. It successfully adds behavioral context beyond the schema by stating the thread will automatically reopen when the time arrives. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or what happens if the thread is already snoozed.

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?

Appropriately concise with two clear sentences and a mutation tag. Information is front-loaded with the purpose statement. Structure is efficient with no redundant text, though the Spanish language content may limit utility for English-only agents.

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 3-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about the core behavior (snoozing and auto-reopening). However, it misses the relationship to sibling 'unsnooze_email_thread' and lacks output information (though no output schema exists to describe).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting all three parameters (action, thread_id, until) including the ISO 8601 format example. The description mentions 'fecha y hora especifica' but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states it postpones/snoozes an email thread until a specific date/time and that the thread will reopen automatically. Uses specific verb (pospone) and resource (hilo de email). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'unsnooze_email_thread' or explain when to use one versus the other.

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?

Provides minimal usage guidance. The '[mutation]' tag hints at state-changing behavior but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (like 'unsnooze_email_thread' or 'assign_email_thread'), nor any prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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