zabbix_update_template

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether it requires special permissions, what happens if the template ID is invalid, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool, so the lack of such information is a significant gap.

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 extraneous words. It states exactly what the tool does in a minimal format, earning a top score.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits usage context such as whether only provided fields are updated, what the response looks like, or any preconditions. The schema details parameters but not behavioral semantics, leaving the description incomplete.

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 provides descriptions for all five parameters (host, name, groups, templateid, description), giving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter information, so it is neutral; the baseline of 3 applies because 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 resource ('existing template in Zabbix'), making it unambiguous. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like zabbix_create_template or zabbix_delete_templates, but the verb and resource are specific enough to differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., template must exist), or scenarios that favor this tool. The phrase 'existing template' implies modification of an already-created entity, but it does not clarify the scope of changes or how to handle non-existent templates.

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