kingdee_save_production_order

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with creation/modification. Description adds a creation example and return value description. However, it does not mention idempotency or that modifications require FID (though schema mentions it). No contradictions 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?

Description is concise with a clear purpose and a helpful example. The JSON example adds length but is justified. Could be slightly more streamlined without the example, but overall efficient.

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 moderate complexity (one nested parameter) and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more parameter context. The return value is well-described. However, missing explanations for form_id and other fields reduce completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a JSON example for the 'model' parameter but fails to explain 'form_id', 'need_update_fields', and 'is_delete_entry'. Schema includes descriptions but the tool description does not elaborate, leaving gaps.

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 '新建或修改生产订单（PRD_MO）', which is a specific verb (create/modify) and resource (production order). It distinguishes from siblings like kingdee_save_bill and kingdee_save_asset by focusing on production orders.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kingdee_save_bill for other order types. The purpose is implied but not articulated, and prerequisites (e.g., existence of material FNumber) are not mentioned.

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