Authenticate with ERPNext

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral outcomes. It only mentions the authentication method, but does not explain what happens after successful authentication (e.g., returns a token/session), whether it is a prerequisite for other calls, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an authentication tool.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately concise.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the authentication response, session handling, or the necessity to authenticate before using sibling tools, leaving critical context 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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (username and password), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Authenticate with ERPNext using username and password'. It specifies a verb, resource, and method, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (document/workflow operations) by focusing on authentication.

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 phrase 'alternative to API key' gives slight guidance on usage contexts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool (e.g., before other ERPNext operations) or when not to use it. No clear exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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