ezd_api1_set_transfer_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a view is set; it does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the API returns. Because the description implies a state-changing operation without any behavioral detail, it is only minimally transparent.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than meaningfully concise. Repeating 'przez API1' adds no value since the tool name already contains API1, and the sentence does not elaborate on the operation. It is readable but not optimally informative.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, 4 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line statement. It does not explain the transfer-view concept, the role of the many optional worker/position IDs, or what happens after the view is set. The description is substantially inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters and their basic meanings. The description adds no additional semantic context, such as how the required parameters (IdKoszulki, IdFormularza, IdDokumentu, Widok) relate to each other or what 'Widok' actually controls. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does most of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Ustaw' / set) and names a resource ('widok przekazania koszulki'), so it does indicate the basic action. However, 'widok przekazania' is a domain-specific term that is not explained, and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ezd_api1_set_form_view or ezd_koszulka_transfer. The phrase 'przez API1' is also redundant with the tool name.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings, such as ezd_koszulka_transfer, ezd_api1_transfer_case, or ezd_api1_set_form_view. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of what scenario this transfer-view operation is intended for.

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