zabbix_gerenciar_acoes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost none of it: it does not say that disabling an action stops notifications/escalations, whether changes are reversible, what permission level is required, or how to select between the enable/disable/update modes. Only the bare fact that it is a mutation is conveyed.

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 padding, which is good, but the leading "56." is pure noise and the brevity comes at the cost of all useful detail rather than from efficiency.

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 described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and a fully undocumented parameter set, the description leaves far too much unspecified. The agent cannot reliably choose acao_tipo values or predict 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 three parameters, yet the description adds zero meaning: acao_tipo (required, presumably the operation mode) and actionid (required, the target) are never explained, and nome is not mentioned at all. An agent would have to guess valid acao_tipo values.

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 names the verbs (habilitar, desabilitar, atualizar) and the resource (ações), so the operation is identifiable. However, it opens with a stray ordinal "56." and never distinguishes itself from the sibling zabbix_consultar_acoes, leaving the agent to infer that this one mutates while that one reads.

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 pick this tool over zabbix_consultar_acoes or any other action-related sibling, and no preconditions are stated. The phrase "conforme a API" points at external documentation rather than telling the agent anything actionable.

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