frappe_run_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only whitelisted methods are callable, generic mutators are refused, and destructive actions need confirmation. Does not cover rate limits or authentication, but is sufficient for a generic runner.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded essential info: what it does, example, exclusions, and special behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 generic nature and lack of output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects and usage context. Could mention error handling or response format, but overall complete for practical use.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates. It explains the method parameter with an example and the confirm parameter's role for destructive actions. Kwargs is not described but is generic dictionary; description adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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 calls whitelisted server methods via dotted path, provides an example, and distinguishes from structured document tools. It also mentions the confirm parameter for destructive actions.

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?

Explicitly lists when not to use (generic Frappe mutators) and directs to structured frappe_*_document tools. Also indicates that destructive methods require confirm=true, providing clear usage boundaries.

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