zabbix_update_service

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, but 'Update an existing business service in Zabbix' reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, partial-update semantics, or the behavior of omitted fields. It does not even mention that list parameters (tags, parents, children) replace existing values, which is critical behavioral information.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to skim. This is appropriately concise for a high-level tool summary, even though it omits details that belong in the schema.

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 complex (13 parameters, nested objects, full-replacement semantics for several fields) and has no annotations or output schema. The description does not explain the update semantics—such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged or are cleared—nor does it mention return values or error conditions. This is insufficient contextual guidance for an agent to use the tool correctly without deeper inference.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 13 parameters, so the schema already provides the necessary semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing business service'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools zabbix_create_service and zabbix_delete_services. It is specific enough, though it lacks the detail of mentioning updatable fields or scoping caveats.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'existing' implies it is not for creating or deleting services, but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer zabbix_get_services or other update tools. This offers minimal usage context.

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