zabbix_create_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates an action, but does not mention that it writes to the Zabbix backend, may require authentication permissions, or could have side effects such as triggering automated responses. There is no context about reversibility or preconditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that precisely states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant information.

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 (15 nested parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain how 'filter' and 'operations' work together to define an action, what the expected return value is, or what prerequisites must exist. The schema is comprehensive for parameters, but the description fails to provide an operational overview or context for the action creation workflow.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 15 parameters, including semantics, defaults, and nested structures. The description does not compensate beyond the schema but doesn't need to.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a new action in Zabbix' with its purpose 'for automated responses to events'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_actions, zabbix_update_action, and zabbix_delete_actions.

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?

The description implies use when you need to create a new Zabbix action, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., existing host groups, media types). It doesn't state exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage.

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