zabbix_atualizar_item

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 largely drops it. It does not say this is a mutation, that unspecified fields are left unchanged, that changing 'delay' alters polling cadence, or that status=disabled stops data collection — all material side effects for an agent performing an update.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the leading "24." is dead weight from a numbered list that leaked into the description, and the single sentence is too sparse to earn its place as the only guidance for a 4-parameter mutation.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description should carry side-effect and field semantics. It delivers neither, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently beyond guessing.

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, so the description must compensate and does not: no mention of itemid being required, of status encoding (enabled/disabled integer values), or of the accepted delay format (e.g. '60s'). "Configurações permitidas" gestures at the optional fields without mapping to any of them.

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 verb and resource ("Atualizar ... um item") are identifiable and distinguishable from zabbix_criar_item / zabbix_consultar_item. However, "configurações permitidas" is vague — it never says which settings are updatable (name, delay, status), so the agent cannot confirm scope from the description alone. The leading "24." is unexplained noise rather than meaning.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus zabbix_criar_item, zabbix_consultar_item, or zabbix_atualizar_host, and no preconditions (item must exist, whether changes are partial or full). The only implicit signal is the word "Atualizar".

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