zabbix_update_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the mutation action ('Update') but provides no additional context such as required permissions, side effects, behavior on invalid trigger IDs, or whether properties are partially or fully updated. The phrase 'existing' hints at a constraint but does not elaborate.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is zero extraneous information. This is appropriately concise for a simple CRUD operation.

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 schema is rich, covering all parameters with descriptions, and the tool's purpose is clear. However, the description lacks any mention of return values or error behavior, and there is no output schema. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is a bit sparse, but the overall context provided by the name, siblings, and schema makes it minimally complete.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not clarify how parameters relate to each other or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents each parameter.

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 'Update an existing trigger in Zabbix' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('trigger'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_trigger, delete_triggers, and get_triggers. It also specifies 'existing', reinforcing that this is a mutation operation on an already-created trigger.

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. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions beyond the word 'existing', which only implies that it is not for creating triggers. It does not say when to prefer this over zabbix_update_item or other update tools.

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