zabbix_create_value_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. It merely states a create operation without revealing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or behavior on duplicate names. The description does not mention the hostid parameter's global vs per-host behavior, which is important for a create action.

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, grammatically correct sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no fluff, and every word adds value.

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 tool with a fully described schema, the description suffices. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but that is not critical for a create operation. The omission of potential use cases (e.g., mapping items) is minor.

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 description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, and that is acceptable here since the schema is thorough.

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 ('value map'), and specifies the purpose ('mapping numeric values to text'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'zabbix_create_map' for network 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?

The description implies the tool's use case (creating value maps) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'zabbix_update_value_map' or reference other tools. There is no exclusion criteria or 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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