ezd_api3_update_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 'update' and asks the caller to pass an object with required fields; it does not explain partial vs. full update semantics, validation effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure.

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 short and non-redundant, containing one instruction about the action and one about the needed input. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity leaves key details unstated.

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 tool has a required nested object with undocumented fields, no output schema, and no usage guidance. An agent cannot reliably construct the 'koszulka' payload or understand the update's side effects, so the description is incomplete for a real invocation.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters, including defaults for owner/position IDs, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the vague phrase 'z wymaganymi polami' without specifying which fields of the nested 'koszulka' object are required, so it does not meaningfully compensate for the opaque nested object.

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 uses a clear imperative verb ('Zaktualizuj') with a specific resource ('koszulke (sprawe)') and system ('EZD PUW'), so an agent can tell it performs case updates. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like ezd_koszulka_update or ezd_koszulka_update_attributes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Other sibling tools exist for updating koszulka attributes or documents, but the description gives no condition or context that would help an agent choose this one.

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