zabbix_host_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention critical side-effects, such as array parameters (groups, macros, templates, interfaces) replacing ALL existing associations—a detail only present in the schema. It also does not disclose return values, permission requirements, or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the action and target, the second provides a usage constraint. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits crucial behavioral caveats like the replace-all semantics for array fields, and provides no guidance on response format or side effects. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema, which is not always sufficient for correct invocation.

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 73%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a general partial-update instruction but does not elaborate on any specific parameter or compensate for the 27% of parameters lacking schema descriptions. The schema itself provides richer parameter details, so the description adds marginal value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates properties of an existing Zabbix host.' The verb 'Updates' combined with the resource and scope ('existing host', 'properties to change') distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, and delete. The additional instruction 'Provide only the hostid and the properties to change' reinforces its partial-update nature.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Provide only the hostid and the properties to change.' This clearly indicates the tool is for partial updates to existing hosts, implying it should not be used for creation, deletion, or full replacement. While it does not name alternative tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from siblings.

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