zabbix_criar_servico

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at validation ('com relações válidas') without saying what makes a relation valid, whether the call fails on an unknown parent_serviceid, or what permissions are needed for this mutation.

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?

A single short sentence with the purpose front-loaded, which is efficient. The '63.' numbering artifact is meaningless to an agent, and the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight 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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, a 0%-documented schema, and hierarchical semantics (parent_serviceid) that the description never explains. The output schema covers return values, but an agent still lacks enough to invoke it correctly beyond supplying a name.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate and does almost nothing. 'Relações válidas' vaguely gestures at parent_serviceid but says nothing about name, algorithm, or sortorder semantics.

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 states a specific verb+resource in Portuguese ('Criar um serviço de negócio'), which clearly separates it from the read/update siblings like zabbix_listar_servicos, zabbix_consultar_servico and zabbix_atualizar_servico. However, it never names those siblings and the qualifier 'com relações válidas' is vague, plus the stray '63.' prefix adds noise.

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 guidance on when to create a business service versus updating an existing one, no prerequisites (e.g., that a parent service must already exist), and no mention of the alternatives among the many service-related siblings. The agent must infer everything.

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