erpnext_bom_preflight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that Routing operations are resolved and rules like positive operation time are checked. It does not enumerate all checks, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 tight sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key behavioral details. Every clause adds information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and main behavior well, and the output schema plus annotations fill in return-value and safety context. However, one parameter (include_doc) is left unexplained, and the rule set is vaguely described as 'known rules' rather than summarized or linked.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'existing BOM' maps to bom_name and 'proposed BOM payload' maps to doc, but it entirely omits include_doc. An agent cannot determine what include_doc controls or how it affects the invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Preflight') and resource ('existing BOM or proposed BOM payload'), explicitly notes that it does not write, and names concrete behaviors: resolving Routing operations and checking ERPNext manufacturing rules. This clearly distinguishes it from BOM creation/revision and other write-oriented siblings.

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 conveys the intended use case: validate a BOM before writing, whether existing by name or proposed as a payload. The phrase 'without writing' implicitly tells the agent not to use this for actual create/update operations, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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