zabbix_atualizar_inventario

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, and it delivers very little. The phrase 'campos permitidos' hints that only a whitelist of inventory fields is writable, but it never says which restrictions apply, whether inventory mode must be enabled beforehand, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action, scope, and examples; nothing is wasted. The stray '72.' numbering artifact at the start is noise that should be stripped, but it does not obscure the intent.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no schema descriptions, and a nested open-ended object, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but permission requirements, the inventory-mode interaction, and allowed-field validation are all left to guesswork.

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%, so the description should explain the three parameters, but it only addresses the nested campos_inventario via examples. hostid is obvious, yet modo_inventario (default 1, a mode switch controlling manual vs automatic inventory) is completely unexplained, which is a meaningful semantic gap for an agent filling the call.

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 and resource ('Atualizar campos de inventário ... de um host') and gives example fields (os, location, tag, notes), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling zabbix_atualizar_host (which edits host properties) or from the read-only zabbix_consultar_inventario, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this over zabbix_atualizar_host, zabbix_consultar_inventario, or zabbix_gerar_relatorio_inventario. The only usage signal is the implied 'update inventory fields', with no prerequisites, preconditions, or exclusions stated.

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