zabbix_create_icon_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Create a new icon map' which implies a mutation, but it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether duplicate names are allowed), required permissions, or the response format. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word earns its place, with no wasted phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple create tool.

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 a simple create operation with a fully described schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks guidance on prerequisites such as how to obtain icon IDs or the significance of inventory field numbers. There is no mention of the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful given no output schema exists. Overall, it is minimal but sufficient for a straightforward creation task.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (name, default_iconid, mappings), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already explains. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new icon map in Zabbix for mapping inventory fields to icons'. The verb 'Create' combined with the specific resource 'icon map' and the purpose 'mapping inventory fields to icons' is unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zabbix_create_map' (likely for network maps) and 'zabbix_update_icon_map'.

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 usage when you need to create an icon map, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'zabbix_create_map' or when to use 'zabbix_update_icon_map' instead. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer the right context, but explicit guidance is missing.

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