zabbix_gerenciar_proxies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden; it does disclose that operations require approval (mapping to token_aprovacao), which is real context beyond the schema. But it does not clarify that delete is destructive/irreversible, what operating_mode controls, or what the approval flow entails.

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 front-loaded sentence that is efficient. The '86.' numeric prefix is meaningless residue that wastes space and adds no value.

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?

For a create/update/delete tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. Key gaps are valid action values, operating_mode semantics, and the destructive nature of delete. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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%, so the description should compensate but adds no parameter meaning at all. It never explains valid values for 'acao', the meaning of 'operating_mode' (default 0), or how proxyid vs nome are used.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (manage proxies) and enumerates the operations it performs: create, update, delete. An agent can distinguish it from read-only siblings like zabbix_listar_proxies and zabbix_consultar_proxy. The leading '86.' is noise 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?

'com aprovação' implies an approval gate before executing, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to choose this tool over the read-only proxy siblings, nor what action values are valid or when each applies.

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