zabbix_criar_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 create/mutation operation, and it falls well short. The only hint is 'parâmetros validados', which implies input validation but does not say what validation rules apply, whether groups/templates must pre-exist, whether the call is idempotent on duplicate host names, or what happens on partial failure.

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, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The leading ordinal '13.' wastes the front-loaded position that should carry the actual purpose and constraints.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions the definition is far too thin. An agent lacks enough context to populate required fields correctly or anticipate side effects.

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 8 parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. Critical fields like grupos_ids (required), templates_ids, tipo_interface, and campos_inventario receive no explanation of meaning, format, or constraints anywhere in the definition.

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+resource pair ('Criar um host') is identifiable, but the qualifier 'com parâmetros validados' is vague and adds no discriminating information. Nothing distinguishes it from close siblings such as zabbix_cadastrar_dispositivos_em_lote or zabbix_previsualizar_cadastro, and the leading '13.' is a leftover list marker 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, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to dry-run via zabbix_previsualizar_cadastro first, or whether batch creation should go through zabbix_cadastrar_dispositivos_em_lote.

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