zabbix_delete_value_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 behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool deletes value maps, but does not disclose that deletion is permanent, whether any authorization is required, or any cascading effects on hosts/items that reference the maps. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action verb, containing no fluff. However, it is so minimal that it misses opportunities to include caveats or usage notes, though it is appropriately sized and well-structured for the simple operation.

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 having a well-documented parameter schema, the description lacks any context about the destructive nature, prerequisites (fetching value map IDs), or side effects. For a delete operation with no output schema or annotations, this is inadequate. The description is not complete enough to allow safe invocation without additional research.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter with a clear description ('Array of value map IDs to delete'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score 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 clearly specifies a unique verb-resource pairing ('Delete value maps from Zabbix'), which distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools for other Zabbix resources. There is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention that value map IDs must be obtained first (e.g., via zabbix_get_value_maps), nor does it warn against deleting in-use maps. No usage context is given.

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