ezd_dokument_set_reminder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that a reminder is set, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether existing reminders are replaced, permission requirements, or any response/return behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating operation.

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 or redundancy. The parenthetical clarification '(przypomnienie)' adds useful disambiguation, and the sentence is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool is simple and its schema fully documents the parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides only minimal context. It is adequate for selecting the tool, but incomplete regarding behavioral outcomes and expected results.

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 IdDokumentu, CID, and the owner-default parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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 clearly states a specific action ('Ustaw' = set), a specific resource ('monit/przypomnienie na dokumencie' = reminder on a document), and the system context ('EZD PUW'). This is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like ezd_dokument_update or ezd_dokument_accept.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus other document-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The usage context is only implicit from the name and one-line description.

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