zabbix_remover_host

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful weight by flagging '(Ação destrutiva)' and requiring prior validation/confirmation. However it does not state irreversibility, whether dependent objects (items, triggers, templates) are removed with the host, or what permissions/failure modes apply.

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, but the stray ordinal prefix '15.' is noise and the sentence stops well short of what a destructive tool needs. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than economy.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description omits the approval-token flow, blast radius, and prerequisites. Not enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 both parameters are undocumented structurally. The description never explains what 'hostid' must be nor what 'token_aprovacao' is or how it is obtained — despite 'confirmação' in the text clearly alluding to that token without connecting the two.

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 a specific verb ('Remover') and resource ('um host'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like zabbix_atualizar_host or zabbix_ativar_desativar_host. The leading '15.' is an unexplained list artifact that adds no meaning and slightly muddies the opening.

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?

'Somente após validação e confirmação' implies a precondition without naming the validating tool (e.g. zabbix_consultar_host or zabbix_previsualizar_alteracao) or explaining how confirmation is obtained. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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