usermacro_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial value by specifying the permanence ('Permanently removes') and the cascade effect on items/triggers ('will no longer be able to reference it, potentially causing parsing errors'). This is precisely the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent anticipate 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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action, followed immediately by the most relevant consequence. Every sentence contributes either to what the tool does or what the agent should expect. No redundant or filler text.

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 only one required parameter, a complete output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description addresses the essential operational context: the deletion is permanent and may break referencing items/triggers. Nothing critical is missing for a tool of this 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?

The input schema fully documents hostmacroids ('Host macro IDs to delete') with array and minItems constraints, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate – the schema carries the weight.

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 opens with 'Delete host macros from Zabbix,' a specific verb and resource that precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like host_delete or item_delete. The second sentence reinforces the host-level scope, and the destructive outcome is explicit.

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 clearly implies the tool is for removing host macros, but it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives (e.g., 'use usermacro_get to inspect macros before deleting' or 'if you need to modify a macro, use usermacro_create'). The presence of sibling get/create tools makes the context decent, but no direct guidance is provided.

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