ezd_api3_change_correspondence_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It truthfully says the tool changes status and lists valid status values, but it does not disclose side effects, transition restrictions, reversibility, ownership requirements, or whether status 3=USUNIETA performs a soft deletion. For a state-mutating tool, this is a notable transparency gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact status reference. Some redundancy with the schema's Status description exists, but the description remains easy to scan and does not waste much space.

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 schema covers the paramters well, but this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should add behavioral and workflow context. It does not explain transition rules, side effects, how to obtain the outgoing correspondence identifier, or what the response might indicate. An agent can make a syntactically valid call but lacks enough context to reason about consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, and the Status parameter description already contains the full status-code mapping; the tool description largely repeats this mapping. It adds no meaning about how IdentyfikatorKW relates to outgoing correspondence or how the default worker/position parameters behave. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation well.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Zmien') and a specific resource ('status korespondencji wychodzacej'), so an agent can tell this tool mutates the status of an outgoing correspondence item. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ezd_api3_correspondence_status, but the change-vs-read distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ezd_api3_correspondence_status, ezd_api3_register_correspondence, or the search tools. It does not mention workflow stages, prerequisites, or scenarios like marking correspondence as sent, cancelled, or received. An agent must rely on the tool name and schema rather than on explicit usage guidance.

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