host_create

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

The description indicates this is a mutating operation (creates a host) but provides no details on idempotency, failure behavior (e.g., if a host already exists), or the response format. With annotations showing no hints, the description carries the burden but only discloses the basic create action.

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 concise and well-structured, using short sentences to convey essential information without unnecessary verbosity. It efficiently states the purpose, required fields, and optional configurations, making it easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately avoids explaining return values. It covers the key aspects for usage, including required and optional parameters. It does not address edge cases or error handling, but for a create operation, this level of completeness is adequate.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema, covering their meaning and examples (e.g., status as 0=enabled, 1=disabled). The 'params' field is clearly explained as a catch-all for fields not covered by the individual arguments, ensuring comprehensive understanding of parameter usage.

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 function as creating a new host in Zabbix, with specific details about required fields (host name and groups) and optional configurations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like host_update by its explicit focus on creation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 practical guidance on when to use this tool (when starting to monitor a new server or device) and what is required (at least a host name and groups). However, it does not explicitly contrast with host_update or host_delete, leaving some room for interpretation, though the 'create' semantics are clear.

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