ezd_api3_create_rwa_folder_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state-changing, non-idempotent sequential allocation by saying 'next number,' but it does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, reversibility, permissions, or error conditions. This is a mutation tool and the behavioral context 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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the scoping inputs are packed into a short closing clause. Every word earns its place.

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?

Parameters are fully documented in the schema and the tool is simple (flat object, no output schema), so the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. However, for a state-changing create operation with no annotations, the lack of any behavioral or usage context leaves the definition only moderately 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 seven parameters. The description adds only marginal value by mapping its three key concepts (unit, year, symbol) to the required parameters, which meets the baseline 3 but does not exceed it.

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 specific verb (Utworz — create) and a specific resource (kolejny numer teczki RWA — next RWA folder number), and states the scoping inputs (jednostki, rocznika i symbolu RWA — unit, year, RWA symbol). This inherently distinguishes it from the sibling get_rwa_folder_number and delete_rwa_folder_number tools via the create action.

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 the closely related ezd_api3_get_rwa_folder_number or ezd_api3_delete_rwa_folder_number siblings. There is no stated precondition (e.g., unit must exist) or indication that this is the tool to call when a new sequential number is needed.

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