make_mapped_doc

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent without information on what the tool returns.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear statement of purpose followed by examples. However, the list of methods could be considered verbose for an agent; a reference to ERPNext documentation might suffice.

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks information about error handling, required permissions, or prerequisites. The list of methods provides context but not completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('method' and 'source_name'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool creates a new document mapped from an existing one (document conversion), using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'create_document', which also creates documents, leading to potential ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_document' or 'run_method'. The description lists common mapping methods but does not explain prerequisites, error conditions, or when each method is appropriate.

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