frappe_cancel_document

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the docstatus transition (1->2) and confirm requirement, but omits critical details such as irreversibility, permission needs, side effects on related records, or error conditions. This is insufficient 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 extremely concise at two sentences, both front-loaded with the core action and a critical usage condition. No redundant words or irrelevant details; every sentence provides essential information.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is too brief. It lacks information on return values, error scenarios, prerequisites, or potential impacts of cancellation. The agent is left with an incomplete picture of the tool's behavior.

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%, yet the description only adds meaning for the confirm parameter (requires true). The required parameters doctype and name lack any explanation of their format, constraints, or role, leaving the agent to guess. The description should elaborate on all parameters given the low schema coverage.

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 cancels a submitted document by changing docstatus from 1 to 2, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like frappe_submit_document (does opposite) and frappe_delete_document (deletion). The verb-resource pairing is specific and actionable.

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 implies usage for submitted documents and explicitly requires confirm=true, but does not provide guidance on when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives like frappe_update_document or frappe_delete_document. The context is implied but not explicit.

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