ezd_api3_register_edoreczenia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only states that a shipment is registered and lists two modes. It does not explain what registration entails — whether the delivery is actually dispatched to the public/private register, whether the operation has legal effect, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects occur. The PURDE/PUH distinction is already present in the schema's TrybWysylki description, so nearly no new behavioral context is added.

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 filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, at this length the description is under-sized for an 11-parameter mutation-type tool with no annotations — the brevity is a virtue, but the description is not fully appropriately sized to the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient. It does not say what happens upon registration, how the two modes affect behavior, or how this tool relates to register_epuap and register_correspondence. An agent would still need to infer the workflow and pick among siblings without any guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mode sentence marginally reinforces the allowed TrybWysylki values (PURDE=publiczny rejestr, PUH=prywatny), which is slightly useful given no enum constraint exists, but it essentially paraphrases the schema text and adds nothing about the other nine parameters.

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 names a specific action and resource — 'Zarejestruj wysylke przez e-Doreczenia w EZD PUW' (register an e-Doreczenia shipment in EZD PUW) — and clarifies the two sending modes (PURDE public register, PUH private). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from closely related registration siblings such as ezd_api3_register_epuap, ezd_api3_register_correspondence, or ezd_api3_register_inflow.

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 many registration siblings (register_epuap, register_correspondence, register_inflow, register_document). The PURDE/PUH line is parameter-level advice, not tool-selection guidance. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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