zabbix_create_proxy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a proxy is created, with no information about side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what the API returns. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides no insight into behavior beyond the action itself.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is so brief that it lacks useful context beyond the tool name, which slightly lowers the score from 5 to 4.

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 (22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), a single vague sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain the purpose of a proxy in distributed monitoring, the distinction between active and passive modes (though operating_mode is in schema), or any caveats. A more complete description would mention that creating a proxy is a prerequisite for distributing monitoring tasks and that certain parameters are conditional on operating_mode.

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 all 22 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter information (e.g., it does not explain the significance of operating_mode or the relationship between address and operating_mode). Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high; the description neither enhances nor detracts from schema-provided semantics.

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 a new proxy') and the resource ('proxy in Zabbix for distributed monitoring'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools that create other resources (e.g., zabbix_create_map, zabbix_create_hostgroup) and from proxy-related operations like update/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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., zabbix_update_proxy for modifying an existing proxy). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for valid Zabbix credentials, or scenarios where creating a proxy is appropriate. There is no 'use this when...' context.

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