ezd_koszulka_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'transfer' without explaining side effects such as whether the source assignment is released, whether the target replaces or adds ownership, or whether permissions are required. The optional source/target/owner parameters and their defaults are not clarified.

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 single sentence is free of filler and front-loaded, which is good. However, for a 10-parameter transfer operation with no annotation context, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, offering too little substance for the tool's complexity.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description carries too much burden and does not cover required field combinations, ownership defaults, or the transfer's effects on source and destination. An agent cannot reliably determine correct usage from this definition alone.

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 schema already documents each parameter, supporting a baseline of 3. The description adds little beyond implying that target and source worker/position fields relate to the transfer, and it does not explain which optional parameters need to be supplied together.

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 (Przekaz - transfer), a specific resource (koszulke), and a destination (innemu pracownikowi/stanowisku), making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this direct transfer tool from the sibling ezd_koszulka_transfer_by_template, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 instead of related siblings like ezd_koszulka_transfer_by_template, ezd_koszulka_share, or ezd_koszulka_copy. The intended context is only implicit, and no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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