zabbix_update_value_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'update' without detailing side effects, such as whether the mappings array replaces all existing mappings (which is only mentioned in the schema), permission requirements, reversibility, or consequences. 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource, conveying the core function efficiently.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide more context. It does not explain the update semantics beyond the name, such as full replacement of mappings or return behavior. The schema provides parameter details, but the description is insufficient for a potentially destructive operation without explicit safeguards or warnings.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema thoroughly documents each parameter with clear descriptions, including the behavior of 'mappings' replacing existing mappings. The schema does the heavy lifting, so no extra credit or penalty.

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 tool's action: 'Update an existing value map in Zabbix.' The verb 'update' and resource 'value map' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_value_map and delete_value_maps.

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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing value map, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus creating or deleting value maps, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as needing an existing valuemapid. Usage is inferred from the name and 'existing' keyword.

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