zabbix_create_trigger

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. However, it only restates the creation action and offers no details about permissions, idempotency, side effects, failure modes, or what happens if the trigger already exists. This adds little beyond the tool name 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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a simple create operation, even if it lacks behavioral detail.

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?

Despite the schema being rich, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., required host or existing items for the expression), what the tool returns (likely a trigger ID), or the implications of the 'status' and 'priority' fields. For a create tool with no annotations or output schema, this is a significant gap.

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%, with all six parameters clearly documented (e.g., 'expression' as 'Reduced trigger expression', 'status' as '0 - enabled, 1 - disabled'). The description itself provides no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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') and the resource ('a new trigger in Zabbix'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like zabbix_update_trigger and zabbix_delete_triggers. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as zabbix_update_trigger for modifying existing triggers or zabbix_delete_triggers for removal. There are no prerequisites, contextual conditions, or exclusions mentioned. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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