ezd_dokument_add

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It states the basic mutation ('Dodaj'), but it does not disclose side effects, required environment defaults (EZD_WORKER_ID/EZD_POSITION_ID), failure modes, return behavior, or any other behavioral traits beyond the action itself.

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?

One concise Polish sentence front-loads the verb and object. Every word contributes to the core meaning; there is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits workflow context, defaults for owner IDs, what the response contains, and any prerequisites for the target folder.

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 describes 100% of the parameters, so the description need not repeat them. It adds only the general target context ('do koszulki'), which is already captured by KoszulkaId; thus it meets the baseline but adds little parameter-specific meaning.

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 Polish description uses a specific verb (Dodaj) and names the resource (nowy dokument) and target container (koszulka), so an agent can tell this creates a document within a folder. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as ezd_dokument_register or ezd_dokument_update, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name and the word 'add' when to select it, and there is no hint about when ezd_dokument_register or ezd_dokument_update would be more appropriate.

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