erpnext_input_begin

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

Annotations already signal mutation and destructiveness (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint false). The description adds that the upload is local and that inputs must be calculated from the source, but it does not explain the side effects of beginning an upload, such as creating a pending artifact or resetting an existing one. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the resource, and the key parameter semantics are all present in a compact string.

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 stateful multi-step upload flow, the description conveys the purpose but omits important context such as the required sequence (begin → append → finalize), what starting a new upload does to prior state, and any constraints on concurrent uploads. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but lifecycle context is still missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'byte length' clarifies expected_bytes and 'SHA-256 calculated from the source' clarifies sha256. However, it does not provide details on expected_bytes units/limits, sha256 encoding, or the optional mime_type, so semantic coverage remains incomplete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Begin') with a clear resource ('a local artifact upload') and names the two key inputs (byte length and SHA-256). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like erpnext_input_append and erpnext_input_finalize, which handle later phases of the same workflow.

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 word 'Begin' implies this is the first step in a local artifact upload sequence, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention that it should be followed by append/finalize. Usage context is present but only implicitly.

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