ezd_pracownik_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and one sentence is not enough. It does not mention side effects, whether access is revoked or kept, permission requirements, or reversibility; the existence of the ZachowajDostep parameter hints at access behavior that the description fails to explain.

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 filler, so it is appropriately concise for a simple operation. It could have used that brevity to add routing or side-effect context, but the structure itself is clean.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the transfer does to existing access, what the response looks like, or which conditions call for this tool instead of related transfer or update siblings.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the destination unit, which the schema already covers; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the precise action ('Przenies pracownika') and target ('do innej jednostki organizacyjnej'), so an agent can tell this is an employee-transfer operation. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as ezd_pracownik_update or ezd_koszulka_transfer, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling list contains several transfer-like tools such as ezd_koszulka_transfer and ezd_api1_transfer_case, but the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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