zabbix_atualizar_servico

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. It signals a mutation ('Atualizar') but does not disclose partial-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, permission requirements, reversibility, or side effects on service rules.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary elaboration. The only unnecessary element is the leading '64.' artifact, but the sentence itself is compact and readable.

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. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool with 3 undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse: it omits behavioral details, parameter meaning, and usage context needed to invoke it correctly.

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% for all three parameters. The description mentions 'propriedades e regras' generically but does not explain what 'name' or 'algorithm' mean in Zabbix services, nor does it mention the required 'serviceid'. It fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a clear verb ('Atualizar') and resource ('serviço') plus a scope ('propriedades e regras'). It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like criar_servico and consultar_servico, though it does not name them. The leading '64.' is noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus zabbix_criar_servico, zabbix_consultar_servico, or other update alternatives. It also omits prerequisites such as requiring an existing serviceid. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Atualizar'.

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