zabbix_services

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, while the description adds important workflow context: reads return compact defaults, and writes are two-step with a preview followed by a confirm_token. It does not detail the consequences of specific destructive writes, but the two-step confirmation behavior is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 three compact sentences, front-loads the domain and method list, then covers return behavior and write confirmation, and ends with a useful documentation pointer. No wording is wasted.

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 generic method-dispatch tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key method names, read/write behavior, and a pointer to zabbix_describe_method for per-method parameters. It could say more about return values or error handling, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds meaningful method-level detail by listing the exact service and SLA method names, which helps with the method parameter, and it clarifies confirm_token's role in the two-step write process.

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 identifies the resource as the 'Zabbix services API' and enumerates the service and SLA methods it covers. This makes the tool's domain clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic zabbix_raw_api sibling.

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 implies usage for service and SLA methods and directs agents to zabbix_describe_method for documentation and parameters. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of zabbix_raw_api or other domain tools, nor does it give explicit exclusions.

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