zabbix_criar_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints that the expression is validated (implying failures are possible) and that some permission gate exists, but it says nothing about required auth, what happens on invalid expressions, or that this is a mutating operation and its side effects.

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 a single short sentence with no rambling, but the chapter-number prefix '36.' is inert and the sentence spends its words on vague qualifiers rather than load-bearing detail.

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 create/mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage; even accounting for the output schema handling return values, the description does not supply enough for an agent to call it correctly, particularly for the required expression syntax.

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, and the description only alludes to 'expression' with no format, syntax, or dependency guidance. The required 'description', 'priority', and optional 'comments' fields are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at Zabbix expression syntax.

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 ('Criar triggers') is stated, which is more than the tool name alone, but the qualifier 'quando permitido' is vague and there is no differentiation from siblings like zabbix_atualizar_trigger or zabbix_listar_triggers. The leading '36.' artifact adds noise rather than clarity.

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?

'Quando permitido' gestures at a precondition but never states what permission is required, when to choose this tool over zabbix_atualizar_trigger or zabbix_previsualizar_alteracao, or any workflow context. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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