zabbix_gerenciar_regras_descoberta

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, yet it only implies mutation via 'gerenciar'. It does not disclose what the accepted operations are, whether deletions are destructive/irreversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to existing discovery rules when iprange is omitted.

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, but the leading ordinal '82.' is noise and the sentence is under-specified rather than information-dense. Brevity here costs correctness rather than earning its place.

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. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and fully undocumented parameters, the description omits everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly (valid actions, id/range formats, 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% for three parameters, including the required 'acao' and 'druleid' plus optional 'iprange'. The description mentions no parameter at all, so the agent gets no hint about valid values for 'acao' (there is no enum) or the format of 'iprange'/'druleid'.

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 verb+resource ('Gerenciar regras nativas de descoberta de rede (drule)'), which tells an agent this mutates discovery rules rather than listing them. However, 'gerenciar' is a generic umbrella verb that does not say whether this creates, updates, deletes, or enables/disables a rule, and there is no explicit contrast with sibling zabbix_listar_regras_descoberta.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-routing information. An agent must guess how this differs from zabbix_listar_regras_descoberta or zabbix_descobrir_rede.

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