ezd_koszulka_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that a folder is created; it does not describe return behavior, side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, or what happens if the optional owner IDs are omitted. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(teczke)' usefully clarifies the domain term, and 'w systemie EZD PUW' provides necessary system context. Every word earns its place.

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 schema fully covers the four parameters and their defaults, and the action is simple enough that an agent can invoke the tool with only the required Nazwa. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context—at least the return behavior or a pointer to a related retrieval tool—to be fully complete.

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 every parameter (CID, Nazwa, IdPracownikaWlasciciela, IdStanowiskaWlasciciela) is already documented, including defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3.

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 is a direct, specific command: 'Utworz nowa koszulke (teczke) w systemie EZD PUW' — create a new koszulka/folder in the EZD PUW system. It clearly states the verb, the resource, and the system, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like ezd_koszulka_update or ezd_koszulka_get.

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 alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as ezd_koszulka_copy, ezd_dokument_register, or ezd_koszulka_update, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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