erpnext_doc_cancel

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that cancellation triggers ledger reversal and custom hooks and that preflight cannot simulate these effects. This is valuable behavioral context an agent would not derive from the schema or 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?

Two short sentences pack the operation and the key safety caveat with no filler. The structure is front-loaded and every clause 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 destructive tool with three undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what dry_run does, what inputs are required, or how to validate before invoking, and the preflight reference is unexplained.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain doctype, name, or dry_run. The verb 'Cancel' gives partial meaning to the parameters, but dry_run's behavior is entirely undocumented.

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 operation ('Cancel') and the system ('Frappe'), which is enough to identify document cancellation. It does not explicitly state the object is an ERPNext document or distinguish from delete/submit, but the tool name and schema fill that gap.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use cancel versus alternatives like erpnext_doc_delete, erpnext_doc_update, or erpnext_doc_submit. The warning about preflight is cautionary, not usage-directional.

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