ksef_correction_zero

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation's key side effect (all item quantities are set to zero) and the prerequisite condition (no local draft of the original). It does not cover output or post-creation submission behavior, but the most safety-critical facts are present.

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?

Three short sentences, all informative: the action, the zeroing behavior, and the draft prerequisite. No filler, and the core verb-object is front-loaded.

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 15 parameters, nested items, and no output schema, the description is adequate for selecting and roughly calling the tool but leaves gaps: it does not say what the tool returns, whether it sends a correction to KSeF immediately or creates/stages it, or how the KSeF data should be supplied. The schema covers parameters, but operational context is thin.

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 parameters are already documented individually. The description adds context that the items list represents original positions and that quantity values will be zeroed, but it does not explain individual parameter mechanics beyond the schema; baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb and object: 'Utwórz korektę zerującą' plus the concrete behavior 'Zeruje wszystkie pozycje (ilość → 0)'. This clearly distinguishes it from the generic ksef_correction_create sibling and tells an agent exactly what the tool produces.

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 states when it applies: corrections based on KSeF invoice data, and explicitly notes that no local draft of the original is required. It does not name an alternative tool or give an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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