WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it includes a [mutation] tag indicating state change, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether the operation replaces existing agents or adds to them, what happens if an invalid agent_hash is provided, or whether the operation is atomic.

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 brief with two complementary phrases separated by an em-dash, immediately conveying purpose. The [mutation] tag is placed at the end. No redundant or filler text is present.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain behavioral safety and side effects (e.g., 'this replaces all existing agents'). It fails to provide this context, leaving agents uncertain about the operation's destructive scope despite the schema hint about empty arrays.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the format of phone_hash or provide an example), but it doesn't need to given the complete schema documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Actualiza') and resource ('agentes asignados a una cuenta de correo electronico'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_agent (general properties) and assign_email_thread (thread-level vs account-level). The prefix 'Reasignar agentes de cuenta de email' reinforces the scope.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assign_email_thread, or prerequisites such as requiring an existing email account. No mention of whether this replaces existing assignments or appends to them.

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