ezd_api3_delete_rwa_folder_number

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

The destructiveHint annotation already marks this as destructive, and the description reinforces it with 'Operacja destrukcyjna — usuwa przydzielony numer.' This adds context that the action is irreversible. However, it does not disclose consequences for related records, whether confirmation is required, or any authorization prerequisites beyond the annotation.

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 with no redundant content. The core action and destructive warning are front-loaded, and the description does not repeat what the schema already documents.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description is minimally sufficient: it conveys the action and risk. However, it does not state what happens to the folder number after deletion, whether related records are affected, or whether there is any rollback. Given the 100% schema coverage, the missing operational detail is a moderate gap.

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 all 9 parameters have individual descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting the operation deletes an assigned number. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Usun numer teczki RWA z systemu EZD PUW' (Delete RWA folder number from EZD PUW system). It clearly identifies this as the deletion counterpart to the sibling creation and retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools like ezd_pracownik_delete or ezd_api3_delete_case, so siblings are not fully distinguished.

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 implies usage for deleting assigned RWA folder numbers and explicitly warns that the operation is destructive. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ezd_api3_get_rwa_folder_number or ezd_api3_create_rwa_folder_number. Context is implied by the verb 'delete' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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