erpnext_bom_create_revision

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by stating that a draft revision is generated and frozen while the source BOM remains unchanged, clarifying a key behavioral side effect. It does not fully explain what 'freeze' implies or what destructive side effects may occur, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 filler. Every clause contributes meaning: 'generate and freeze', 'draft revision', 'submitted BOM', and 'source remains unchanged'.

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 core operation is stated, but the description leaves the parameter semantics completely unaddressed and gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related BOM/update tools. Even with an output schema present, the missing parameter documentation and usage guidance make this incomplete for reliable selection and 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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'source_bom', 'fields', or 'dry_run'. While 'source_bom' is inferable from the tool name, the roles of the optional 'fields' object and 'dry_run' flag are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent unable to use them correctly.

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 names the specific action ('Generate and freeze a draft revision') and the resource ('submitted BOM'), and adds a differentiating constraint: the source remains unchanged. This clearly distinguishes it from general doc mutation tools like erpnext_doc_update or erpnext_doc_delete.

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 implies usage context: it is for creating a draft revision of an already submitted BOM, not for editing the source directly. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as erpnext_doc_update or erpnext_bom_preflight, nor does it give exclusions.

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