kingdee_unaudit_bills

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive. The description adds value by specifying the exact state transition ('已审核 → 待审核') and the condition for success (success=true meaning return to pending audit). It also mentions that bills can be modified and resubmitted, which is helpful context 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 short and to the point, using two sentences in Chinese plus a return format line. It is front‑loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy in the return description (mentioned in both Chinese and English) could be trimmed, 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?

For a simple state‑change operation, the description covers purpose, state transition, preconditions (audited state implied), and postconditions (modifiable). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, it lacks error handling or what happens if bills are not in audited state.

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 already describes the two parameters ('form_id' as 单据类型标识, 'bill_ids' as 单据内码FID列表). The tool description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters, so it meets the baseline for a schema with full description 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 states the tool un-audits bills, changing status from '已审核' to '待审核'. It distinguishes from sibling 'kingdee_audit_bills' by specifying the reverse operation. Additionally, it explains the benefit (can modify and resubmit) and provides the return format.

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 implies the tool is used to reverse an audit, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., delete, submit). No direct contrast with sibling tools like 'kingdee_delete_bills' or 'kingdee_submit_bills'. Some guidance is provided by mentioning post‑un‑audit actions.

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