delete_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'delete' but does not disclose that the operation is likely irreversible, whether it is a soft or hard delete, or whether audited bills can be deleted. This lack of warning is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 and front-loaded: one primary purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, including the mutual-exclusion note. No wasted words.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits return values, error behavior, and critical constraints (e.g., cannot delete audited documents). The output schema may define the return shape, but the description does not cover operational context needed for safe use.

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 description adds valuable meaning beyond the bare schema: it provides examples for form_id (e.g., BD_MATERIAL, SAL_SaleOrder), clarifies comma-separated formats for numbers and ids, and explicitly states that numbers and ids are mutually exclusive. This compensates well for the 0% schema 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 '删除金蝶云星空单据' (Delete Kingdee Cloud Galaxy document), which identifies the verb 'delete' and the resource type 'bill/document'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_bill or save_bill, making the purpose specific and clear.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it is for deleting bills, but no guidance is given on prerequisites (e.g., bill must be unapproved) or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated, so it meets the minimum viable level.

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