ksef_approval_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by revealing the 15-minute expiry, the blocked-draft prerequisite, and the KSEF_APPROVAL_MODE=auto behavior. It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a simple single-parameter tool this is meaningful transparency.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct useful information: prerequisite, confirmation requirement, expiry, and auto-mode behavior.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisite, expiry, and mode-dependent behavior. It does not specify what the response contains or how to pass it to ksef_approval_confirm, but the workflow is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, id, with a clear description ('ID zablokowanego draftu (UUID)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Utwórz żądanie zatwierdzenia') and the specific resource ('zablokowanego draftu'), and it is naturally distinguished from the sibling tool ksef_approval_confirm, which handles confirmation rather than creation. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description explains where this step fits in the workflow: approval must be confirmed before sending an invoice to KSeF, and it expires after 15 minutes. It also notes the auto-approval mode. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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