usermacro_create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's claim of creating a macro is consistent. No annotations are contradicted. The description adds context about the macro syntax and usage, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error conditions). Since annotations cover safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by two sentences explaining usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides sufficient context about macro purpose and syntax. Minor omission: no mention of required format for macro names, but that is in the schema. Overall complete for a simple create tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds overarching context (e.g., {$MACRO_NAME} syntax) but does not significantly enhance understanding of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 it creates a new host macro in Zabbix, with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('host macro'). It also explains what host macros are and how they are used (e.g., referenced in items/triggers via {$MACRO_NAME} syntax). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like usermacro_delete or usermacro_get.

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 explains the purpose of host macros (custom variables for dynamic configuration without editing items), giving context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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