frappe_run_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it discloses important guardrails: refusal of generic mutators and the confirmation requirement for destructive methods. It does not cover return shape or error behavior, but for an arbitrary-method tool that is a reasonable boundary.

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 dense sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the mutator guardrail, then the confirmation rule. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded.

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 a generic arbitrary-method runner, it adequately covers invocation format, safety exclusions, and confirmation requirements. The missing kwargs documentation and output expectations are meaningful gaps, but the generic nature of the tool and the named alternatives reduce the risk.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the method parameter with a dotted-path example and explains confirm semantics, but kwargs—the payload passed to the method—is left entirely unspecified, which is a notable gap.

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 states a precise action: calling a whitelisted server method by dotted path, with a concrete example. It also differentiates itself from the structured frappe_*_document tools, so an agent can tell this is the generic fallback runner.

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?

It explicitly says generic Frappe mutators are refused and directs the agent to use the structured frappe_*_document tools instead. It also specifies when confirm=true is required for destructive or high-consequence methods, giving a clear selection condition.

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