erpnext_plan_execute

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds important context: it records agent-attested consent rather than verified human identity, warns against retrying ambiguous writes, and directs the agent to verify the receipt and upstream state. This meaningfully enriches the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place: the action, the consent caveat, and the safety directives are all necessary. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description handles the dangerous-execution context well: it warns about retries, demands user confirmation, and instructs post-execution verification. With an output schema present, return-value details are not required. The main gap is the unexplained plan_id and request_sha256, which prevents full self-sufficiency.

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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It partially explains user_confirmation by referencing 'actual in-scope user approval text,' but plan_id and request_sha256 are left completely undefined. The agent must infer their meaning from the tool name and siblings.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Execute the frozen plan once.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like plan_list, plan_inspect, and batch_prepare by indicating this is the action that runs an already-frozen plan.

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 gives actionable guidance: supply actual in-scope user approval text for sensitive plans, do not create another plan to retry an ambiguous write, and inspect the receipt and upstream state after execution. This provides clear when-and-how-to-use direction beyond simply stating the operation.

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