ezd_koszulka_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'share a koszulka to another employee with selected documents' and does not explain side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, ownership changes, or what happens to the original koszulka. This is insufficient for a mutating sharing 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 a single, direct sentence with no filler, front-loading the action, target, and document scope. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters, a one-sentence description is not enough to fully guide correct invocation. It omits behavioral consequences, prerequisite conditions, return behavior, and relationship to transfer/copy/link tools, so an AI agent would need to infer important operational details.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's only param-related content is 'z wybranymi dokumentami', which merely echoes the UdostępnianeDokumenty property and does not add relationships, formats, defaults, or operational semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses the imperative verb 'Udostępnij' (share) with a clear resource 'koszulkę', a target 'innemu pracownikowi', and a scope 'z wybranymi dokumentami'. This clearly states the core action and distinguishes it from create/update/get siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with transfer/copy/link.

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?

The description implies the tool is for sharing a koszulka with another employee and optionally selected documents, so the basic use case is understandable. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives, which is a gap given the many related koszulka siblings.

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