zabbix_delete_proxies

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. It simply restates the tool name and does not reveal that deletion is irreversible, what impact it has on associated objects, or any permission requirements. This is a destructive operation with zero additional context.

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, short sentence that is easy to read but simply repeats the tool name with 'from Zabbix'. It is concise in length but does not earn its place by adding new information beyond the name. It is not overly verbose, so it avoids a lower score, but it offers minimal 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?

The tool is a deletion operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to provide essential context such as the irreversible nature, side effects on hosts or other configurations, or any validation requirements. For a destructive tool of this complexity, the one-line description is inadequate.

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% coverage for the only parameter, 'proxyids', with a clear description: 'Array of proxy IDs to delete'. The description text adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema is well-documented, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete proxies from Zabbix' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (proxies), distinguishing it from sibling tools like zabbix_get_proxies, zabbix_create_proxy, and zabbix_update_proxy. It is a specific verb+resource that leaves no ambiguity.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, cautionary cases, or explicit exclusions, such as not using it if proxies are still referenced by hosts. There is no context about when deletion is appropriate.

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