zabbix_visualization

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the two-step write flow requiring a confirm_token and that reads return compact defaults. That is real operational context an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing a call; it stops short of saying what a delete removes or whether writes are reversible.

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 front-loaded with the API scope, then the resource/operation matrix, then the read/write behavior, then the pointer to documentation — no wasted sentences. The enumerated method list is dense but earns its space by defining valid method values.

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 dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers the write handshake and points to zabbix_describe_method for per-method parameters, which is the critical missing piece. However, the schema example for `method` ('host.get') does not match any of the visualization resources listed, which leaves the valid method namespace slightly unclear.

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%, so method, params, and confirm_token are already documented in the schema, and the description only reinforces the preview/confirm semantics. It adds no guidance on the shape of params per method beyond deferring to zabbix_describe_method, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names concrete resources (dashboard, templatedashboard, map, iconmap, image, report) and the four operations (create, delete, get, update) applied to each, so the tool's scope is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling domain tools like zabbix_monitoring or zabbix_hosts by its explicit resource list, though it does not state why one would choose it over zabbix_raw_api.

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?

It gives implied usage context: reads are compact, writes need a preview-then-confirm cycle, and documentation lives in zabbix_describe_method. It never states when to use this tool versus zabbix_raw_api or manage_dashboard, which overlaps on dashboards, so the agent must infer the routing.

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