ezd_dokument_add_note

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 discloses the basic mutation but does not mention side effects, ownership defaults, error behavior, or whether the note is appended or replaces existing notes. This is minimal and adds little beyond the tool name.

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. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or misleading content.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a 6-parameter tool, the one-line description leaves significant gaps such as return values, ownership defaulting, and when this operation is appropriate. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is still under-specified for an agent to confidently invoke the tool in all reasonable scenarios.

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 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Dodaj notatke') and target resource ('do koszulki'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the basic action, so it does not reach the top score for sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ezd_dokument_add or ezd_koszulka_list_documents. The description implies usage from the action itself but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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