ezd_api3_delete_case

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

The description restates the destructive nature already signalled by destructiveHint=true, but additionally discloses that a deletion reason is required and identifies the target object ('sprawe'). This goes slightly beyond the annotation by specifying the required justification.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a necessary warning. No redundant phrasing or filler; every sentence 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?

The description covers the core action and the key precondition (reason for deletion), and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no mention of post-conditions, irreversibility beyond the 'destructive' label, or how this relates to close/update alternatives, which matters in an ecosystem with many case-related siblings.

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?

The input schema already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, including PowodUsuniecia and IdKoszulki. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting that the reason is required, which is already visible in the required array.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Usun sprawe z systemu EZD PUW' (delete case from EZD PUW system). This clearly identifies the operation and the target entity, distinguishing it from close/update operations at a basic level.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ezd_api3_close_case or ezd_api3_update_case. The destructive warning implies it should be used only for actual deletion, but there is no exclusion or comparison to sibling tools.

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