zabbix_trend_update

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'update method' without detailing whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. This is a critical omission for a mutation tool.

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?

At four words, the description is grossly under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; this lacks essential detail and is not 'appropriately sized' for a tool with schema coverage 0%.

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 tool's complexity (mutation, siblings like trend_create/get, and 1-param schema with no descriptions), the description is completely insufficient. It does not cover return values, parameter details, or usage context, even though an output schema exists.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'params' with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to it. There is no explanation of what fields are expected inside 'params' or any constraints, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 trend.update method' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It lacks a specific verb-resource pair, such as 'update an existing trend in Zabbix', and fails to distinguish this update tool from sibling trend tools like create or delete.

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 (e.g., trend_create or trend_get). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where updating a trend is appropriate.

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