erpnext_doc_update

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the safe_mode conflict-check behavior (pin modified for Frappe save conflicts) and the sensitivity of child-table replacement. This complements the destructiveHint rather than contradicting it.

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 sentences with zero filler and the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly run-on, but every clause carries non-redundant 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?

For a 6-param destructive tool with nested fields and conflict-check machinery, this is too thin: no explanation of what 'native fields' excludes, how dry_run behaves, what expected_lengths/expected_modified are for, or the child-table replacement semantics. The output schema covers return values, but the usage model is under-specified.

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, but it does not explain doctype, name, fields, dry_run, expected_lengths, or expected_modified. It even references 'safe_mode,' which is not a schema parameter at all, leaving the actual params — especially dry_run and the expected_* conflict-check fields — semantically opaque.

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?

"Update native fields" states a specific verb and resource, clearly positioning this as the modify-existing-document operation within the doc family (create/delete/submit/cancel/get/list/map). It distinguishes itself from siblings by operation type, though "native fields" is domain jargon that is never explained.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite 29 siblings. The safe_mode and child-table remarks hint at constraints, but an agent gets no routing help to distinguish this from erpnext_doc_create, erpnext_doc_submit, or erpnext_doc_map.

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