kingdee_push_stock_transfer

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description discloses the behavior: it creates a direct transfer order from a transfer application. It explains the conversion rules (default vs explicit rule) and the response fields, providing full transparency beyond 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 well-structured with bullet points for parameters and conversion rules. It is slightly lengthy but efficiently explains required details. The main action is front-loaded.

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 has 5 parameters, annotations, and no output schema (but a textual return description), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, conversion logic, and return format. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: fixed form IDs, source_bill_nos as a list, rule_id options, enable_default_rule, and draft_on_fail. This adds substantial meaning beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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 specifies the action ('下推' push down) and the specific resources ('调拨申请单' to '直接调拨单' with fixed form IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kingdee_push_bill by targeting stock transfer specifically.

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 parameters and conversion rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., kingdee_push_bill or kingdee_push_production_pick). The context of stock transfer is implied but not contrasted with other push operations.

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