zabbix_update_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 of disclosure. It only states the high-level action without mentioning side effects, permission needs, idempotency, or that array fields replace existing values. The replacement behavior is only visible in the input schema, not in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gets straight to the point and is easy to parse.

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 complexity (15 parameters, one required, no output schema), a minimal one-sentence description leaves gaps about the overall update behavior and expected response. However, the detailed schema descriptions partially compensate, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 all 15 parameters have descriptions, including explicit notes that array fields like 'urls' and 'links' replace existing values. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, making the baseline 3 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 states 'Update an existing network map in Zabbix' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zabbix_create_map, zabbix_get_maps, and zabbix_delete_maps by focusing on modifying an existing entity.

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 versus alternatives such as create_map or get_maps. It does not mention prerequisites, required parameters, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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