zabbix_proxy_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the update is partial or full replacement. A score of 1 reflects the complete lack of behavioral context.

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 extremely brief, but under-specification harms usability. It does not earn its place as a useful summary, as it merely restates the tool's name.

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 an update tool with no annotations and a generic input schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not describe return values (even though an output schema exists) or provide any usage context. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 sole parameter 'params' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no explanation of its structure or allowed fields. The agent receives no guidance on how to construct the update payload.

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 'Zabbix API proxy.update method' clearly identifies the tool as updating a Zabbix proxy, matching the name and distinguishing from create/get/delete siblings. However, it adds minimal detail beyond the name itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like proxy_create or proxy_get. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for updating a proxy.

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