ezd_formularz_set_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without describing side effects, persistence, permissions, validation of Widok, or what happens if the form doesn't exist. The verb 'Ustaw' implies a mutation, but no operational detail is disclosed.

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 short sentence with no filler, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded. It sacrifices informational depth for brevity but contains no wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it omits behavioral context, valid view numbers, ownership defaults, and any indication of success/failure responses. The sibling overlap further reduces completeness because the agent cannot tell which set_view tool fits the task.

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 schema already documents all five parameters (IdFormularza, Widok, CID, IdPracownikaWlasciciela, IdStanowiskaWlasciciela). The free-text description adds no parameter-level meaning, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 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 'Ustaw widok formularza w systemie EZD PUW' clearly identifies a set operation on a form view resource within a specific system. It is not vague, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling ezd_api1_set_form_view, so it lacks 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ezd_api1_set_form_view or ezd_formularz_create_case_form. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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