frappe_submit_document

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It does mention side effects (FastBound push), which is valuable. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or idempotency, but the provided information is sufficient for basic awareness.

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 one sentence plus a short note, with no waste. It front-loads the main action and requirement, then adds the side effect warning. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool has few parameters and no output schema. The description covers the action, requirement, and side effects. It could mention possible outcomes or errors, but overall it is fairly complete for a simple submit tool.

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 the description should explain all parameters. It only explains confirm (as required), leaving doctype and name undocumented. This is insufficient for proper parameter understanding.

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 action (submit), the target resource (draft document), and the state change (docstatus 0 -> 1). It distinguishes from sibling tools like frappe_cancel_document or frappe_create_document by focusing on submission.

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 explicitly requires confirm=true and warns about side effects (e.g., FastBound push), which gives context for when to use. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings.

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