ezd_api1_transfer_case_by_template

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. The verb 'Przekaz' implies a mutating state change, but the description does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether the source worker must own the case, whether the template must be active), side effects (the case leaves the source worker's scope and moves to the target position), or reversibility. The template mechanic is named but its behavioral implications are not explained.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the primary verb front-loaded. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because the brevity comes at the expense of routing and behavioral detail that a 9-parameter mutating operation with near-identical siblings needs.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, 9 parameters, and a near-duplicate sibling, a one-line description is insufficient. The agent cannot determine what a template-based transfer changes, what conditions must hold, or how to choose between this and ezd_koszulka_transfer_by_template. Critical context is missing.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters with adequate descriptions. The tool description itself names no parameters and adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this baseline but not a value-add.

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), resource ('koszulke sprawy' = case card), and mechanism ('wedlug szablonu obiegu' = via workflow template, 'przez API1'). This clearly separates it from plain-transfer siblings like ezd_api1_transfer_case and ezd_koszulka_transfer. However, the sibling ezd_koszulka_transfer_by_template appears to perform the nearly identical operation, and the description offers nothing to differentiate the two.

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. Given the existence of ezd_api1_transfer_case, ezd_koszulka_transfer, and the near-twin ezd_koszulka_transfer_by_template, an agent has no signal about which transfer tool fits a given scenario (e.g., whether a template is required, or which API version to prefer).

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