ezd_api3_add_addressee

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a create/write operation, but does not disclose expected side effects, required permissions, validation behavior based on Typ, idempotency, or what the operation returns.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the operation and system name. The second clause about Typ adds relevant selection information without redundancy or wasted words.

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 has 10 parameters but all are covered by schema descriptions, and the single required parameter is clear. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns after creation or how attributes should vary by Typ, making it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema except emphasizing that Typ determines the addressee form, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Dodaj nowego adresata' (add a new addressee) in the EZD PUW system. It also distinguishes this create operation from sibling read/search tools like ezd_api3_get_addressee and ezd_api3_search_addressees by signaling creation of a new record.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'Dodaj nowego adresata': use this tool when creating an addressee. However, it does not explicitly name alternative addressee tools or state when not to use this, such as when looking up existing addressees.

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