erpnext_api_request

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

The description adds meaningful safety behavior beyond the annotations: 'Unknown methods become confirmable sensitive plans in safe_mode' and 'dry_run never sends the requested mutation; it saves the exact request and reports what could/could not be verified.' This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive, open-world tool. It supplements the destructiveHint rather than repeating it.

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 tightly written with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core capability and scope; the second adds the crucial dry_run and safe_mode behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The tool is highly complex, with an output schema but 0% parameter description coverage. The description covers broad capability and dry_run behavior, yet important operational context is missing: how authentication is handled, what safe_mode actually requires, and how the various body/expected_* fields cooperate. It is adequate but not complete for a raw HTTP gateway with destructive potential.

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 0%, and the request object has many fields like params, bindings, expected_lengths, body_artifact_id, and json_artifact_id whose semantics are not explained anywhere. The description does add value for dry_run and for the broad content-type categories (JSON/form/multipart/binary), but it does not compensate for the large amount of undocumented nested parameter structure.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Call any same-origin ERPNext HTTP route, including API v1/v2, JSON/form/multipart/binary.' This establishes a general-purpose raw HTTP tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the similar sibling erpnext_call_method, so it misses the full differentiator a 5 would require.

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 prefer this tool over the many sibling tools, nor any explicit when-not-to-use conditions. The phrase 'any same-origin ERPNext HTTP route' implies broad/generic use, but no alternatives or exclusions are named. This leaves the agent to infer routing on its own.

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