sx_submit

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: it is rejected by default under a read-only guard. Since annotations provide no safety info, this is valuable context, but it doesn't elaborate on permissions, side effects, or failure modes. The disclosure gives partial transparency but not full coverage.

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 a single concise sentence that packs the core purpose and a critical behavioral note. It is efficiently structured with no fluff, though it might benefit from a bit more detail. Given the small size, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain what the parameters refer to, what happens after a successful submit, or how the guard can be bypassed. The description is too thin for an agent to use the tool confidently.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. The parameter names (form_id, data_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about their roles or formats. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to fill required fields.

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 action ('提交单据审批') with a specific verb and resource, and identifies it as the official 'submit' entry. It doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like sx_un_submit or sx_audit, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 mentions that it is '默认被只读守卫拒绝' (by default rejected by the read-only guard), which hints at a precondition but does not explain when the tool should or shouldn't be used, nor does it suggest alternatives. No clear usage context or exclusions are provided.

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