zabbix_atualizar_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool, and it delivers almost nothing: no statement of whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial vs. full update), no permission/auth requirements, no side effects, no reversibility. The phrase "propriedades permitidas" is the only hint that some fields are restricted, and it is never expanded.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but the leading "14." is leftover list numbering that carries no meaning for an agent and consumes part of an already minimal payload. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 explained, but for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions the definition is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent what a valid update looks like or how it differs from the many neighboring host-mutation tools.

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% across 4 parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for `hostid`, `status`, `descricao`, or `nome_visivel`. It does not compensate for the coverage gap in any way, leaving the agent to infer semantics from bare property titles.

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 verb ("Atualizar") and a resource ("host"), so the basic action is identifiable, but "propriedades permitidas" never names which properties are updateable and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like zabbix_ativar_desativar_host, zabbix_gerenciar_interfaces_host, or zabbix_atualizar_inventario.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, and no mention of alternatives. This is especially problematic because the schema exposes a `status` field that overlaps with the dedicated zabbix_ativar_desativar_host sibling, leaving the agent to guess which tool owns that operation.

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