ezd_api3_add_letter_subject

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 says the tool adds a party to a letter, but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, duplicate-handling behavior, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation-like action, this is thin.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, target resource, and role options without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the information it provides.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves important invocation details unstated, such as which parameter identifies the party being added and how role selection affects required fields. An agent would need to infer too much about the data model to invoke this tool confidently.

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 parameters are already individually documented. The description adds only the role context (Nadawca, Adresat, other role), which is useful but modest; it does not clarify how the parameters combine to define a party.

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 action and resource: adding a party (podmiot) to a letter in EZD PUW, and enumerates possible roles such as Nadawca, Adresat, or other role. This makes the tool's scope reasonably clear and distinguishes it from the more specific sibling ezd_api3_add_addressee, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like ezd_api3_add_addressee or when a different tool would be more appropriate. An agent cannot determine whether this tool is the general-purpose version of add_addressee or if they have overlapping responsibilities.

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