submit_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Submit' which implies a state change or workflow action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, triggers notifications, or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly redundant since the schema already lists parameters, but it adds clarity.

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 the complexity of a document submission tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'doctype' as 'ERPNext DocType name' and 'name' as 'Document name/ID', which clarifies what the inputs represent. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, as it lacks examples, constraints, or format details, so it meets the baseline for minimal value.

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') and resource ('submittable document') with an example ('Sales Invoice'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_document' or 'create_document', which might also involve document processing, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'update_document' and 'create_document' present, there's no indication of prerequisites, such as whether the document must be in a draft state, or when to choose submission over other operations.

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