ezd_api3_register_case

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 'register a new case' but does not disclose side effects, whether existing records are modified, permissions needed, idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens after successful registration. For a creation/mutation tool this is a significant 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The action and target resource are front-loaded, and the essential input categories are listed clearly. The slight lack of Polish diacritics is a minor style issue and does not hurt clarity.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not clarify which parameters are actually required at runtime, what prerequisites must exist (e.g., koszulka, RWA folder, employees), what defaults apply, or what the response will look like. The tool is a complex creation operation and needs more behavioral and prerequisite context.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a helpful natural-language grouping of the key inputs (numer kolejny, koszulke, rok, teczke RWA, pracownikow), but it does not explain relationships, validation rules, or defaults, and it omits several parameters entirely. It adds modest value over the schema.

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 concrete action ('Zarejestruj' / register) and a specific resource ('nowa sprawe w EZD PUW' / new case in EZD PUW). The word 'nowa' clearly distinguishes it from update/get/list operations on existing cases, and the list of required items (numer kolejny, koszulke, rok, teczke RWA, pracownikow) adds clear scope.

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 clear context: use this tool to register a brand-new case, and the fields to provide. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the emphasis on 'nowa' and the verb 'register' make the primary use case unambiguous.

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