zabbix_write

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety envelope is partly covered; the description still adds real value by stating destructive operations remove something 'Zabbix cannot restore on its own', flagging which individual operations are destructive, and disclosing the audit-log side effect. It does not discuss idempotency/retry behavior, which is the remaining gap.

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 routing sentence, then the operation list where every line carries distinct information and destructive markers. It is long, but the length is justified by eight operations; only minor trimming (e.g. the closing 'say plainly what you did' aside) would be possible without losing meaning.

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 multi-operation write tool with no output schema, the description covers selection, alternatives, destructive semantics, and audit behavior. It does not describe what a successful call returns or how failures are reported, a minor omission given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description goes further by enumerating all eight operations with one-line semantics, so the agent knows what each enum value actually does. It also explains the freeform 'params' escape hatch from the schema description. Marginal but genuine value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change Zabbix in one call and record it in the audit log') and immediately separates itself from sibling tools by name (zabbix_plan_create, zabbix_plan_status). An agent can tell this is the write/execute path versus the plan/dry-run path without opening any 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('user wants a permitted change applied now rather than only described'), names the two alternatives with their own triggering conditions, and adds the routing heuristic 'prefer the narrowest operation that does the job'. Nothing is left to inference.

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