ezd_dokument_accept

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It simply says 'accept document' without explaining what changes occur, whether the action is reversible, whether it requires specific privileges, or what the result is. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing action.

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 clear sentence with no filler words or redundant phrasing. It is concise and front-loads the action and resource, though it is so short that it provides little beyond the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a large family of sibling tools, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain the acceptance workflow, required or optional identifiers, default behavior of the owner/position parameters, or the expected outcome. An agent cannot reliably determine when or how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters, including the nested Dokument object, so the schema coverage is complete. The description adds no additional meaning about how parameters should be used, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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 and resource: 'Akceptuj dokument' (accept document) in the EZD PUW system. This is clear and distinctively names an accept action, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling document tools like ezd_dokument_register or ezd_dokument_update.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling document tools, nor any workflow context such as which document states are eligible for acceptance. The description is purely imperative and leaves the agent to infer usage entirely.

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