ezd_migration_import

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 states that an import happens; it does not disclose side effects (what the migration creates or modifies), idempotency, failure behavior, access requirements, or whether the operation is synchronous or long-running. For a mutation tool this is a substantial 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 sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. However, the brevity reads more like under-specification than measured economy, since a migration-import tool warrants context about effects and operation characteristics. It earns a middle score for efficiency without substance.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must carry the burden of return values, side effects, and operational context, and it does not. The base64 payload parameter (Dane) and owner parameters are left without explanation of how they affect the import. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail; the agent must rely entirely on the schema for understanding Dane, Nazwa, CID, and the owner-ID parameters. Baseline is appropriate — no bonus, no penalty.

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 (Importuj — import), a resource (paczke migracyjna — migration package), and a destination (system EZD PUW). It is unambiguous and no sibling tool name suggests migration-package handling, so confusion risk is low. Minor deduction because it is largely a Polish restatement of the tool name rather than a richer functional clarification.

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 usage guidance is provided whatsoever. With roughly 90 sibling tools, the description gives no context for when to choose this import operation over other ezd_* tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of typical import scenarios such as initial system migration or data recovery.

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