trigger_delete

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description reinforces this with 'Permanently removes' and adds useful behavioral context about retaining historical trigger data and associated problems, which goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key consequences. It avoids redundancy and is structured in clear sentences, though it could be slightly more organized with a bullet list for consequences. Still, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 deletion tool with a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential side effects: permanent removal, alert cessation, and data retention. No critical information for calling the tool correctly is missing; the destructive nature is already annotated and the description adds valuable retention semantics.

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 schema description for triggerids is complete ('Trigger IDs to delete') and covers 100% of parameters. The description adds minimal extra value by mentioning multiple triggers, which is already implied by the array type and minItems:1. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'triggers from Zabbix', which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like trigger_create and trigger_update. It also elaborates on the permanent removal, making the tool's 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 clear context on the effect (hosts no longer generate alerts) and notes data retention, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Since no other delete alternative exists for triggers, the purpose itself sufficiently guides selection.

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