kingdee_enable_bills

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), yet the description still adds real value: ExecuteOperation endpoint, opNumber=Enable at the top level while data carries only business params, and the return key naming (fid/ids, not id). It does not address behavior when the record is already enabled, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 bullet layout is front-loaded and scannable, but the line 'action 依据：范探源 2026-08-07 三重证据查证 + QA 严过关真机实测' is internal provenance noise that does not help an agent invoke the tool and consumes a full bullet.

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 parameterized generic action tool this covers what an agent needs: domain restriction, action code, endpoint/placement convention, parameter precedence, override mechanism, and which return fields to read. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully specified.

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 reported at 0%, so the description has to carry the load, and it does: bill_ids as an FID list (preferred), bill_nos as FNumber for master data, mutual exclusivity rule, and the operation override for custom actions. The form_id parameter's constraint is conveyed only by example (BD_* forms), and the outer params wrapper is never explained.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource (反禁用基础资料, action=Enable) and bounds the scope to master data (BD_Customer / BD_Supplier / BD_Material / BD_Stock), explicitly rejecting single-form specialization. An agent can tell it apart from the many per-document action tools, though it never names its direct counterpart kingdee_forbid_bills.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion (仅适用于基础资料, not ordinary bills) and a precondition (bill_ids or bill_nos, at least one, with bill_ids preferred), plus an escape hatch: pass operation explicitly for customized master data. It stops short of naming the inverse tool (kingdee_forbid_bills) or stating the required source state (must currently be forbidden).

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