ezd_koszulka_transfer_by_template

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 names the core action; it does not disclose side effects on the case, whether the transfer is reversible, how the template is selected (no template identifier parameter exists in the schema), or what the call returns — significant gaps for a mutating tool with 9 parameters.

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?

A single action-first sentence with zero filler, and the discriminating mechanism (template-based transfer) is front-loaded. It borders on restating the tool name, but the 'obiegu dokumentow' qualifier adds domain meaning that keeps it from being a pure tautology.

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 9-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. Missing are the template-selection mechanism, the relationship to the sibling transfer tools, and any indication of return behavior or side effects — all needed for correct invocation.

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 all 9 parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the template-routing semantic but also introduces ambiguity: it says 'by template' yet none of the 9 parameters identifies a template, and it does not explain how IdPracownikaZrodlowego and IdStanowiskaDocelowego interact with template-driven routing.

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 resource ('koszulke' — the EZD case file), and the mechanism ('wedlug szablonu obiegu dokumentow' — per document workflow template). It is clear enough to be recognized as template-driven transfer, which separates it from the plain 'ezd_koszulka_transfer' sibling, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description never addresses how this tool differs from the sibling 'ezd_koszulka_transfer' (direct transfer) or 'ezd_api1_transfer_case_by_template', so an agent cannot reliably decide which transfer tool fits a given scenario.

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