zabbix_create_map

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' which implies a mutation, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or that it likely returns a map ID. This is a significant gap for a complex create operation.

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, direct sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it offers very little substance for a tool of this complexity, so while efficient, it could be more informative without excessive length.

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 high complexity (34 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It does not mention what the function returns, prerequisites like needing existing iconmapids or host IDs, default behaviors, or any operational context. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide higher-level context.

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 100% parameter description coverage and is exceptionally detailed (e.g., enum-like definitions for drawtype, label_type, permissions). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('a new network map'), and the purpose ('for network topology visualization'). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_update_map and zabbix_delete_maps.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., valid icon IDs, existing elements), or any exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools for comparison.

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