ezd_pracownik_update

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it provides only the mutation intent. It does not disclose what identifies the target employee record, what happens when all 11 optional parameters are omitted, the meaning of the source-versus-owner field groups, authentication requirements, or return behavior. There is no contradiction, but disclosure is minimal.

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. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise: for an 11-parameter mutation tool it adds almost nothing beyond what the tool name alone communicates, so the brevity does not earn its place.

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 high complexity — 11 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, a mutation operation, and 85+ siblings — the one-sentence description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what constitutes a valid update call, which identifiers are required, or what the tool returns. This is inadequate 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 each parameter's basic meaning. The description adds no parameter-level semantics: it does not clarify which field serves as the update key, the difference between RoleOrganizacyjne and RoleOrganizacyjneArray, or the 'zrodlo' vs 'wlasciciela' distinction. Per the high-coverage rule, baseline 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 'Zaktualizuj dane pracownika w systemie EZD PUW' states a specific verb (update) and resource (employee data in the EZD PUW system), which is clear against the pracownik_* sibling family (add/get/delete/transfer). However, it largely restates what the tool name already conveys and does not differentiate it from the overlapping ezd_api1_update_worker sibling.

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 versus alternatives. The sibling list contains ezd_pracownik_add, ezd_pracownik_transfer, and the near-duplicate ezd_api1_update_worker, yet the description offers no selection criteria, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'.

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