erpnext_doc_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveIntent=true, so the destructive nature is known without the description. The description adds context beyond this: 'safe_mode requires plan confirmation' discloses a safety gate, and 'no draft-only MCP gate' clarifies that draft status is not an MCP-level restriction. Still, it does not explain what 'safe_mode' is or what actually happens to the document beyond 'delete.'

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 compact and front-loads the main operation, with no filler sentences. However, the compressed jargon 'Prepare/delete' and 'draft-only MCP gate' sacrifices clarity, and the phrasing is dense enough that an agent may struggle to interpret the actual workflow.

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 four parameters, no parameter documentation, and a dangerous default-unsafe operation, the description is too thin. It does not explain dry_run, expected_modified, safe_mode behavior, or how this relates to erpnext_doc_cancel. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the agent still lacks enough information to invoke the tool safely and correctly.

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 for undocumented parameters, but it does not. None of the four parameters—name, doctype, dry_run, expected_modified—are explained. In particular, the meaning and effect of dry_run are central to the 'Prepare/delete' ambiguity and are left entirely to the schema.

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 clear verb and resource: it can 'delete any document allowed by ERPNext.' The phrase 'no draft-only MCP gate' adds useful scope by indicating that deletion is not limited to draft documents. However, the combined 'Prepare/delete' wording blurs whether this tool only prepares a deletion or also executes it, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from erpnext_doc_cancel.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like erpnext_doc_cancel or erpnext_doc_update. The phrase 'any document allowed by ERPNext' implies broad applicability, but the description never states when deletion is appropriate, when cancellation should be preferred, or what prerequisites apply.

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