ezd_koszulka_link

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 only says 'link a shirt with another shirt or case', but doesn't explain whether this creates a new relation, is idempotent, changes existing links, requires permissions, or has any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, and the core purpose is immediately visible before any example or nuance.

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?

Given this is a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It doesn't explain what a koszulka is, what 'powiazanie' means in the domain, when a link should be created versus using a sibling tool, or what happens after the call. An agent would likely need additional documentation or trial-and-error to invoke this correctly.

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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds value by clarifying that IdKoszulkiPowiazanego can target either a koszulka or a sprawa (case), and by providing a concrete example for RodzajPowiazania (DOSPRAWY). This goes beyond the generic schema descriptions and helps an agent understand the semantic range of the parameters.

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 verb ('Powiaz' = link) and a specific resource (koszulka with another koszulka or sprawa), and gives a concrete example (DOSPRAWY). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like transfer, copy, share, or close. The core action is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. An agent would have to infer that this tool is only for creating links, not for transfer or sharing operations. The description gives no context about prerequisites or situations where linking is appropriate.

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