ezd_pracownik_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'add a new employee,' which implies a mutation, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains.

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 with no wasted words. It is concise, though it provides so little detail that it borders on under-specification for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It leaves the agent without guidance on required input logic, defaults, return behavior, or how this differs from sibling worker-management tools.

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 input schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which places it at the baseline of 3.

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 action and resource: 'Dodaj nowego pracownika do systemu EZD PUW' (add a new employee to the EZD PUW system). It is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from the related sibling ezd_api1_create_worker, which also appears to create a worker.

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 about when to use this tool versus ezd_pracownik_update, ezd_pracownik_delete, or ezd_api1_create_worker. The description simply states the action with no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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