usermacro_delete

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

Beyond the destructive hint, the description discloses that deletion is permanent, and that items/triggers referencing the macro will fail to parse. This adds significant behavioral insight not captured by annotations alone.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the main action, and contains no irrelevant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple deletion tool, the description covers core purpose, effects on dependent objects, and safety warnings. It is complete given the presence of an output schema and single parameter, though permissions or error handling are not mentioned.

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 already describes the parameter 'hostmacroids' adequately. The tool description does not add any additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 'host macros from Zabbix', with additional context that it is permanent. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like usermacro_create and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., usermacro_get for viewing, host_delete for deleting entire hosts). It lacks explicit context for selection.

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