frappe_update_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the critical behavior that credential/password fields are stripped automatically. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like permissions or response details.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no extraneous words.

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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description covers the main update functionality and an important constraint. It could optionally mention that it modifies an existing document, but that is implicit.

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%, and the tool description only adds context about credential fields in the values parameter. It does not explain the doctype or name parameters individually.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'document', distinguishing it from sibling tools like frappe_create_document, frappe_cancel_document, and frappe_delete_document.

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 provides guidance that credential/password fields should not be updated via this tool, directing the agent to use Desk instead. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other update-related siblings like frappe_run_method.

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