frappe_delete_doc

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

No annotations provided; the description fully discloses behavioral traits: irreversible deletion, removal of associated data, and potential orphaning of child records. This meets the full burden of transparency for a deletion 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?

Two sentences: first states the action, second adds caution and alternative. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, irreversibility, side effects, caution, and alternative. No gaps.

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 100% with detailed descriptions, examples, and warnings. The tool description repeats the irreversible nature but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Permanently delete a document' with the specific criteria (doctype and name). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create, update, search, etc., which serve distinct purposes.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use with caution' and suggests an alternative ('consider updating the document status to Cancelled instead') for cases where audit is needed, with specific examples (Sales Invoices, Sales Orders).

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