zabbix_plan_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them by stating 'Nothing changes until it is applied.' It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape ('a plan identifier and the exact command the operator must run to apply it') and the apply workflow. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key alternative, and the operation list earns its place. The second sentence re-states the zabbix_write routing already given in the first, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return contract (plan identifier plus apply command) and the when/when-not guidance. Combined with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only minor operational detail (error handling, plan expiry) is absent.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the operation list in the description mirrors the schema enum rather than adding new meaning. The schema itself notes an unusual discovery affordance (passing an unknown param to learn accepted ones), leaving the description little to contribute. Baseline 3.

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 specific verb and resource ('Describe a change to Zabbix without making it') and immediately differentiates from the two relevant siblings, zabbix_write and zabbix_plan_status. The operation enumeration further pins down scope, so an agent can identify this tool without opening its schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('before anything is written'), when-to-use-something-else ('call zabbix_write instead when the user wants the change applied now'), and how to check an existing plan ('call zabbix_plan_status'). Routing to alternatives is spelled out rather than inferred.

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