ezd_koszulka_copy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool copies a case and documents, but does not state whether the source is left intact, whether a new independent case is created, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a mutation-like 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries the core action and target, making it highly concise even though it lacks supporting detail.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is not enough. There is no explanation of how document IDs and target employee IDs interact, what happens if optional fields are omitted, or how this relates to the similar transfer/copy sibling operations. The agent is left to infer important call semantics.

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 8 parameters. The description adds only loose mapping between 'dokumentami' and 'innego pracownika' and the corresponding ID arrays, but no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 states a specific action—copying a 'koszulka' along with its documents to another employee—which is meaningfully distinct from sibling transfer tools. However, 'koszulka' is left undefined and no explicit contrast with ezd_koszulka_transfer is provided, so it stops just short of a 5.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no clarification of when copying is appropriate instead of transferring. The intended usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'Kopiuj'.

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