zabbix_script_update

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or data affected. It only states the method name, failing to inform about what the update entails or any requirements.

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 concise (one sentence), but its brevity sacrifices clarity. It is too short to be useful, essentially just repeating the method name. A concise but informative description would include more context.

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 that the tool is an update operation with sibling CRUD tools and an output schema (though unknown), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the update behaves, or any constraints.

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 single parameter 'params' has no description and the schema provides no constraints beyond being an object or null. The description adds no explanation of what fields or values the 'params' object should contain, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 script.update method' minimally indicates an update operation, but it is nearly a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what kind of script or what aspects are updated, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like create, delete, or 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 versus alternatives such as 'zabbix_script_create' for creation or 'zabbix_script_get' for retrieval. The description offers no context for decision-making.

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