frappe_update_document

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it reveals automatic stripping of credential/password fields, whole-call failure for refused fields, and the real-world safety rationale behind the GunBroker Settings exclusions. It also clearly positions the tool as a mutating operation, so an agent will not mistake it for read-only.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first clause and caveats following in a compact second sentence. The detailed GunBroker example is verbose but earns its place because it explains a non-obvious, high-stakes constraint.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical safety behavior and gives an agent enough to avoid destructive misuse. It leaves the return value unspecified and does not state whether values are merged or wholly replaced, but these are minor gaps relative to the safety-critical guidance provided.

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?

The schema has three parameters with zero description coverage, and the description never explains what doctype, name, or values mean or how to construct the values object. It mentions example field names only as restrictions, not as parameter semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

Description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Update fields on a document.' This unambiguously names the operation and target, and together with the tool name separates it from sibling create/delete/submit/cancel tools. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, so it stops short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 tells agents not to attempt credential/password updates and, for GunBroker Settings, names specific fields that are refused and directs them to be changed in Desk by a person. This is clear when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not address the broader decision of when to update versus create or delete.

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