ezd_dokument_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only reveals that the operation updates attributes; it does not state whether attributes are overwritten, whether the document must already exist, what happens with defaults for owner IDs, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool with no safety metadata, so the gap is significant.

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 sentence, directly front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is concise, though it is also so brief that it carries almost no operational context.

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?

For a write operation with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description is under-specified. An agent cannot determine which document is being updated or what the expected response is. The schema and one-line description leave key invocation logic implicit.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, and also fails to explain how the target document is identified (no document ID appears in the schema), but that omission is not compensated by the description either.

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 concrete action ('Zaktualizuj atrybuty dokumentu') and the target system (EZ DUW), so an agent can tell it updates document attributes rather than registering or accepting a document. It does not explicitly contrast with ezd_document_update or similar siblings, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as ezd_document_register, ezd_document_add, or ezd_api3_update_document. The agent must infer usage 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.