kingdee_save_cost_adjustment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it creates or modifies, plus the return format (JSON with FID and FBillNo). However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, side effects, or behavior when modifying (e.g., partial updates). The added value is moderate.

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: one sentence for purpose, a JSON example, and return info. No redundant words. The key information is front-loaded (purpose), followed by example, making it easy to scan.

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 (saving cost adjustment with nested entries), the model example significantly aids understanding. The return format is specified. While the output schema is not detailed, the description covers the essentials. The schema already documents parameters comprehensively.

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 input schema provides descriptions for each parameter (e.g., form_id, model, need_update_fields, is_delete_entry). The description adds a concrete model example demonstrating the expected JSON structure, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states '新建或修改成本调整单（STK_CostAdjust）' which clearly identifies the verb (create or modify) and the resource (cost adjustment order). The model example further clarifies the structure. Differentiates from sibling save tools (e.g., kingdee_save_bill) by focusing specifically on cost adjustments.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other save tools like kingdee_save_bill or kingdee_save_asset. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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