audit_bill

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a mutating operation that changes document approval status, nor does it address permissions, reversibility, or side effects. The only behavioral note is the mutual exclusivity of numbers and ids, which is more of a parameter constraint than a behavioral trait.

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, consisting of a single purpose sentence followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids wasted words. However, it is very terse and could include a brief usage note without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameters but omits usage guidelines, behavioral impact, and system context. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps. The presence of an output schema lessens the need for return-value details but does not compensate for missing safety and usage information.

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, and it does. It explains each parameter: form_id with concrete examples, numbers with comma-separated format, and ids with format and the explicit mutually exclusive relationship to numbers. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 uses the specific verb '审核' (audit/approve) with the resource '单据' (documents), clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like unaudit_bill and query_bill by focusing on the approval operation. Parameter examples like BD_MATERIAL and SAL_SaleOrder further clarify the scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_bill or unaudit_bill. The description simply states the action and parameter details, leaving the agent reliant on sibling names to infer the appropriate context.

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