kingdee_push_and_audit

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

The description provides extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the full flow (push draft, then submit+audit), failure handling (stop on error, single log entry), and the effect of auto_submit_audit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 (5 lines in Chinese) with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structure flows logically from purpose to behavior to parameter option and return type.

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 tool's complexity (multi-step, 7 parameters), the description covers purpose, behavior, failure handling, parameter options, and return structure. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

While the schema already describes each sub-parameter, the description adds context for auto_submit_audit (equivalent to pure push) and the return structure. However, it does not enhance understanding of other parameters beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 defines the tool as a one-stop flow of Push plus optional Submit and Audit, distinguishing it from siblings like kingdee_push_bill (pure push) and kingdee_audit_bills (audit only). It specifies the verb 'push_and_audit' and the resource 'target bills', with scope details.

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 explains when to use this tool vs alternatives by noting that setting auto_submit_audit=False makes it equivalent to kingdee_push_bill, and it mentions failure behavior (stop on any step). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide comprehensive alternatives.

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