zabbix_auditlog_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about side effects (e.g., what gets modified), authentication needs, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 very short (8 words), but it is not informative. While it avoids verbosity, it fails the test of earning its place: it provides no useful guidance, essentially repeating the tool name. A score of 3 reflects minimal acceptable length but no value.

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?

Given the complexity of Zabbix auditlog operations and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what auditlog records are, what fields can be updated, or what the return value represents. The description is completely inadequate.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The single 'params' object has no description or constraints, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent has no clue what fields are needed or accepted.

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 merely restates the method name ('Zabbix API auditlog.update method'), offering no specific verb or resource details. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like zabbix_auditlog_create or zabbix_auditlog_get.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, required context, or situations where update is appropriate versus create or delete.

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