ezd_addin_create_print_token

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, and it only states that a token is created. It does not disclose whether the token is persisted, its validity/lifetime, whether it requires prior setup of env variables, what the caller receives back, or whether the operation has side effects. The phrase 'przez Addin w systemie EZD PUW' gives system scope but no behavioral detail.

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?

A single Polish sentence with no filler or repetition; the verb and object are front-loaded. Every word earns its place. The terseness that hurts other dimensions is not a structure problem here — the text is appropriately compact for the information it conveys.

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?

The tool is part of a print-token workflow with closely related siblings, yet the description does not explain how the token is used, what the return value looks like, or how this call fits with the other addin print tools. With no output schema and no annotations, the missing return-format and workflow context leaves an agent guessing. The 100% parameter coverage mitigates but does not compensate for these gaps.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters including sensible defaults (CID auto-generated, owner worker/position IDs falling back to environment variables). The description adds zero parameter-level meaning and does not need to. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a specific verb (Utworz — create), a specific resource (token do druku — print token), and the system scope (EZD PUW via Addin). The token type 'do druku' differentiates it from the sibling ezd_addin_create_file_edit_token, though it does not name any sibling explicitly. Clear enough for an agent to know what the tool produces.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ezd_addin_create_file_edit_token or the other print-workflow siblings (ezd_addin_get_attachment_for_print, ezd_addin_get_doc_ids_for_print). There is no mention of prerequisites, the expected print workflow, or exclusions. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and parameter schema.

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