ezd_api3_register_inflow

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the registration action but does not disclose creation side effects, defaulted fields such as IdPracownikaWlasciciela/IdStanowiskaWlasciciela, expected output, or any constraints. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause conveys the purpose and the data domain. It is efficient for the reader.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not say what the call returns, what minimal data is needed, what validation applies, or how it differs from the many similar registration 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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The instruction 'Podaj dane adresata/nadawcy' merely groups them as recipient/sender data and adds no format, required-combination, or semantic detail beyond 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?

Description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Zarejestruj nowy wplyw' = register new inflow) and identifies the system (EZD PUW), which clearly differentiates it from read/list siblings like ezd_api3_get_inflows and update siblings like ezd_api3_update_inflow_metadata.

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 when-to-use or alternative-selection guidance is provided. Despite many related registration tools among siblings (register_epuap, register_edoreczenia, register_correspondence), the description only states the action and mentions recipient/sender data, never explaining when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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