zabbix_suprimir_notificacoes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word "temporária" is the only behavioral hint; it does not say whether the suppression is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects notifications only or also escalations, or how long the suppression persists.

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, so it is not bloated, but the ordinal prefix "58." is wasted text and the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being earned conciseness.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the agent still lacks any information about scope, side effects, or the meaning of its two required inputs.

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% and the description explains neither parameter. It is unclear whether eventids are problem-event IDs or trigger IDs, and the integer suprimir_ate has no stated unit or format (Unix timestamp, seconds from now, epoch millis), leaving an ambiguity that directly risks an incorrect call.

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 phrase "supressão temporária de alertas de problemas" conveys the resource (problem alerts) and the action (temporary suppression), but the verb "Implementar" is vague and the leading "58." numbering is meaningless noise. It also makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings that touch the same domain, such as zabbix_reconhecer_problema or zabbix_criar_manutencao.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus acknowledging a problem, creating maintenance, or disabling a trigger. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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