zabbix_delete_maps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Delete network maps' implies a destructive action, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it can be undone, or if it has cascading effects on related entities. This lack of detail leaves the agent under-informed about the impact of invoking the tool.

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, well-structured sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation. It front-loads the action and object, with no filler words. However, because it omits crucial behavioral context, it is concise at the expense of completeness, so it does not earn a perfect score.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the core purpose is adequately conveyed by the description and schema. However, the absence of any warning about the destructive nature or irreversible effects makes the description incomplete for an operation of this type. A minimal viable description would include at least a note that deletion is permanent.

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 a complete description for the single parameter (sysmapids: 'Array of network map IDs to delete'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already covers the parameter meaning.

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 function with a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('network maps'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete other entities like users or hostgroups. It is concise 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or how this relates to other map-related tools like zabbix_update_map or zabbix_get_maps. The description solely states the action without contextualizing usage.

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