ezd_api3_update_inflow_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that metadata gets updated, but not how the target inflow is selected (no inflow ID parameter exists), whether the update is partial or full replacement, what role the filter-style parameters (DataRejestracjiOd, NadawcaNie) play, or what the operation returns. For a mutation tool this is a substantial 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words — verb and resource come first, followed by a compact em-dash list of scope. It is efficient, though it achieves brevity by omitting the behavioral context this tool needs.

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?

A 12-parameter mutation tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations receives only one short sentence. The most important context is missing: how the inflow to update is identified (no ID parameter), what a no-argument call does, and how date/sender filter parameters behave inside an update operation. Incomplete for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents all 12 parameters individually. The description adds only a high-level grouping (addressee, registration data, address) that loosely maps to the parameters. It does not clarify the critical ambiguity of which parameters act as selection filters versus values to set.

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 specific verb ('Zaktualizuj' = update) and resource ('metadane wplywu' = inflow metadata), and lists the field groups touched (adresat, dane rejestracji, adres). This distinguishes it from siblings like ezd_api3_register_inflow or ezd_api3_get_inflows, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 alternatives. The context — that the inflow must already exist and this is a follow-up to registration — is only implied by the verb 'update'. Siblings such as ezd_api3_register_inflow and ezd_api3_update_case are not referenced.

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