zabbix_update_proxy

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 does not mention side effects, such as the 'hosts' parameter replacing all existing host assignments, nor does it address permissions or idempotency. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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, clear sentence that immediately gets to the point. While it is minimal, it is not overwrought, and it effectively serves as a purpose statement without unnecessary fluff.

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 (23 parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not convey key behavioral nuances like host replacement, TLS handling, or what the response contains, leaving the agent with insufficient context for confident 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?

The schema covers 100% of the 23 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, offering no extra 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('existing proxy in Zabbix'), accurately distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_proxy and delete_proxies. It immediately conveys the tool's core function without 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or any exclusions. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and schema.

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