ezd_api1_transfer_case

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 identifies the operation as a transfer but does not disclose side effects, what happens to the source assignment, required authorities, reversibility, or any post-transfer state changes.

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 concise sentence with the core action front-loaded. The tail 'przez API1 w EZD PUW' is somewhat redundant given the tool name, but it does not materially hurt clarity.

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 mutation tool with 10 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only the basic action. It omits guidance on required source/destination IDs, expected outcome, and behavioral consequences, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema-provided parameter names and labels; it does not explain relationships between source and destination parameters or default owner behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Przekaz' — transfer), a resource ('koszulke sprawy' — case cover), and a destination ('do innego pracownika/stanowiska'). It is clear but does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling ezd_koszulka_transfer or the template-based transfer variants.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ezd_koszulka_transfer, ezd_api1_transfer_case_by_template, or ezd_koszulka_transfer_by_template. The description only restates the action without explaining selection criteria or exclusions.

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