ezd_koszulka_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Zakoncz' implies a state-changing close operation, but the description does not say whether the operation is irreversible, whether it requires special permissions, what happens to linked documents, or what response to expect.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. With six parameters, a nested identifier object, and no output schema, a single sentence is not enough for reliable invocation.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits lifecycle context, prerequisites, side effects, and return behavior, so an agent has no way to know what happens when the tool is called.

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 all six parameters, including the nested Koszulka identifier object, owner IDs, and the optional JRWA class. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it is not required to compensate for undocumented fields.

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 and object ('Zakoncz koszulke' — close the koszulka) and names the EZD PUW system. However, it essentially restates what the tool name already communicates and gives no detail about what closing means or how it differs from lifecycle siblings such as ezd_koszulka_resume or ezd_koszulka_transfer.

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 about when to close a koszulka, what prerequisites must hold, or when to prefer ezd_koszulka_resume, ezd_koszulka_update, or ezd_koszulka_transfer instead. The single sentence leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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