ezd_api3_update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the update action and the attribute payload format. It does not explain whether attributes are replaced or merged, whether the document must already exist, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur.

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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant text. It is under-specified in content, but as a structural matter it is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits critical context such as how the target document is identified, whether updates are incremental or full replacements, error behavior, and any prerequisites. The description is too thin to support correct invocation in an agentic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains CID, Dokument, and the owner IDs. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond restating the attribute array shape already present in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Zaktualizuj dokument') and the target system ('EZD PUW'), making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools with similar purposes such as ezd_dokument_update, ezd_api3_register_document, or 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also update or register documents. It neither mentions specific use cases, prerequisites, nor excludes alternatives, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given situation.

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