proxy_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes further by stating the deletion is permanent, explicitly noting that hosts assigned to deleted proxies need reassignment, and that data is typically retained. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the action directly, and the second sentence elaborates on the consequences (host reassignment and data retention). Every sentence carries necessary information with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 destructive delete operation with a simple single-parameter input and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior, permanence, and side effects. There is no missing critical information that an agent would need to decide to call this tool or interpret its effects. It is complete for the given complexity.

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% — the proxyids parameter is described as 'Proxy IDs to delete' in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the 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 clearly states the verb ('Delete') and the resource ('proxies from Zabbix'), and explicitly notes that it 'Permanently removes proxy definitions'. This distinguishes it from proxy_get (read) and proxy_update (modify), so the purpose is 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 conveys when to use the tool by describing the permanent removal and the consequential need to reassign hosts, implying that if reassignment is undesirable, alternatives like proxy_update should be considered. However, it does not explicitly name proxy_update or state 'do not use when you intend to modify', so it stops short of explicit routing.

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