zabbix_ativar_desativar_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never discloses that this is a mutation, whether disabling a host suppresses its data collection, triggers and alerts, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions it needs.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the leading "16." is leftover list numbering that adds no meaning and slightly obscures the sentence. The brevity here is under-specification rather than efficient wording.

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 need not be described, but for a two-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage the description is far too thin. The status value encoding and the side effects on monitoring are exactly what is missing and what an agent needs before calling.

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 coverage is 0% for both parameters, and the description supplies nothing: hostid is never explained and the meaning of the required integer 'status' (which values mean enabled vs disabled) is completely absent. An agent must guess the encoding for the one parameter that determines the outcome.

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 states a recognizable verb and resource ("Alterar o status de monitoramento de um host"), so the general intent is clear. However, it never says which direction the change goes (enable/disable) or what the two states are, and it does not distinguish this from sibling zabbix_atualizar_host, which can plausibly also change host status.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no named alternatives. With a sibling like zabbix_atualizar_host in the list, an agent has no stated reason to pick this tool over that one for a status change.

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