erpnext_doc_map

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

Annotations already declare the tool to be non-read-only, destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds a process hint—generate then 'freeze' a save—which is consistent with the destructive annotation, but it does not clarify what is created, modified, or destroyed. This is acceptable given annotation coverage but not richly transparent.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core operation stated first and the sibling routing second. It is concise, though the phrasing is cryptic enough that brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 tool with six parameters, no schema descriptions, and destructive behavior, the description omits key operational details: what 'common mapped document' means, how dry_run and save_draft interact, and what the output contains. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the rest of the calling contract remains largely unspecified.

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 provides no explanation of source_doctype, source_name, target_doctype, dry_run, save_draft, or extra_args. With six undocumented parameters and zero compensation in the description, an agent has no way to know what values to pass or how parameters affect behavior.

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 a verb and resource ('Generate a common mapped document') and distinguishes itself from call_method, but 'common mapped document' and 'freeze any requested save' are vague and do not clearly explain what the tool produces or how it relates to source/target doctypes. An agent would still be unsure what makes this mapping 'common' or what freezing a save entails.

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 explicitly names an alternative ('Use call_method for other mappings') and gives a rough routing condition. It does not fully explain when this tool is preferred over sibling doc tools, but it provides clear enough guidance to steer an agent away from call_method for mapping-like operations.

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