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. It includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation and describes the state change (postponed → open). However, it lacks details on idempotency, error conditions (e.g., if the thread is not currently snoozed), or side effects.

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 appropriately concise with clear front-loading ('Reactivar hilo de email pospuesto'). It uses an em-dash to separate the summary from the explanation efficiently. The '[mutation]' tag is slightly informal but does not significantly detract from 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 simple two-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral intent (state restoration). However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it could be improved by mentioning error cases or the expected outcome when the thread is not in a snoozed state.

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 ('action' and 'thread_id' are fully documented in the schema). The description provides baseline value by implying the parameters through the action described, but does not add syntax details, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 (reactivate/unsnooze) and resource (email thread), including the state transition from 'pospuesto' (postponed/snoozed) to 'estado abierto' (open state). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'snooze_email_thread' or the generic 'email_thread_action'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the thread must currently be snoozed) or when to prefer this over the generic 'email_thread_action' sibling.

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