zabbix_agendar_relatorio

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden for a mutating tool. It says 'nativo do Zabbix' and 'Scheduled Reports' but does not disclose required permissions/roles, how an existing schedule is matched for update (by nome?), whether an update overwrites or merges, or that email_destinatario triggers delivery. Only the bare fact that it writes report-schedule config is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler prose, but the leading '50.' is a numbering artifact that adds noise and the useful content is not front-loaded with any actionable detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a create-or-update mutation with zero annotation coverage and zero schema documentation, the description leaves the agent unable to call it confidently — the identity/merge semantics and accepted period formats are unknown.

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 0% on three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions 'nome' as the identifying/lookup key, never enumerates valid values for 'periodo' (which defaults to 'semanal' but has no enum), and never explains that 'email_destinatario' is nullable or what null means for delivery. At most, 'agendamento' weakly implies periodo is the recurrence.

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?

States a specific verb pair (criar ou atualizar) and a specific resource (agendamento de relatório nativo do Zabbix / Scheduled Reports). An agent can tell this is about scheduling recurring reports, distinct from the zabbix_gerar_relatorio_* siblings that produce a report on demand, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to schedule versus when to generate a report immediately via the many zabbix_gerar_relatorio_* / zabbix_exportar_relatorio_* tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of what makes an agent choose the update path rather than the create path.

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