ezd_blockchain_order_immutability

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 data will be ordered for blockchain persistence; it does not disclose whether this is asynchronous, whether the operation is irreversible, what authorization is required, or what happens on duplicate sequence numbers. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation-like tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. It is concise, though it sacrifices some behavioral context for brevity.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what calling this tool returns or whether it is a fire-and-forget request. The description also omits any relationship to the blockchain read siblings. For a 5-parameter tool with required inputs and no return-value documentation, this is incomplete.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters, including base64 encoding for Dane and the long type for NumerSekwencyjny. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Zlec utrwalenie danych w blockchain' (order data to be persisted in the blockchain). This clearly signals a write/order operation and is distinguishable from sibling read tools like ezd_blockchain_get_record. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those sibling read tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 ezd_blockchain_get_record or ezd_blockchain_get_last_record. The verb 'Zlec' implies it is the write counterpart to the read tools, but the description never states this or any conditions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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