kingdee_push_production_stock_in

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the return format (JSON with success, target_bill_nos, next_action). It does not disclose idempotency, partial failure behavior, or authorization requirements, relying heavily on 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 extremely concise: one sentence for the core purpose and one sentence for the return value. It is front-loaded with the primary action, contains no extra words, and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 (multiple parameters, push workflow) and the absence of an explicit output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., valid material requisition state), error handling, and relationships to other tools, leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding of proper usage.

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 description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. Although the input schema itself describes parameters (bill_nos, rule_id, draft_on_fail), the description must compensate for low coverage but fails to add any semantic context about how or why to use them.

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 tool's purpose: pushing from production material requisition to generate a production stock-in order. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('从生产领料单下推生成生产入库单') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kingdee_push_bill and kingdee_push_production_pick by focusing on the specific stock-in document type.

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, such as kingdee_push_bill or kingdee_push_stock_transfer. It lacks explicit context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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