Create DocType

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates a DocType; it does not mention permission requirements, whether the operation is irreversible, potential side effects like schema migrations, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words or filler. The length is appropriate for the simplicity of the core message, though it could be expanded with additional context.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to understand the full context. It does not explain what happens after creation, whether overrides are allowed, or the expected return value. The minimal description leaves too much unspecified for a tool that creates a structural entity like a DocType.

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 provides descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), including fields, module, autoname, and permissions. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameters themselves. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('new custom DocType in ERPNext'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_document (creates a document of an existing DocType) and create_custom_field (adds a field to an existing DocType). It is more than a tautology because it names both the action and the object.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it is appropriate to create a custom DocType, nor does it contrast with tools like create_custom_field or create_document. There is no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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