ksef_env_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful trait: the change happens 'w runtime' and requires no restart. However, it does not state side effects such as whether switching environments invalidates the current token or affects subsequent KSeF calls, nor whether the change persists.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main action front-loaded and the no-restart benefit stated immediately. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence earns 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?

For a simple configuration setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description states the purpose, the mutable settings, and the key runtime benefit. It is slightly incomplete only in not warning about side effects like token validity or global impact on subsequent calls, but the schema covers parameter details and the tool is low-complexity.

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%, and each parameter already has its own description. The tool description merely restates the parameter names and their optionality, adding no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Zmień' (change), and identifies the exact resource: KSeF environment, NIP, or token. It clearly distinguishes this configuration-mutation tool from sibling read/invoice/token tools by naming what it mutates. The second sentence reinforces the intended use case of switching between production and test environments.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to switch KSeF environment, NIP, or token at runtime without restarting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though a sibling like ksef_env_info exists for reading current environment state. This is clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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