execute_operation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose effects, permissions, and reversibility, but it only lists parameters. It mentions operation types (禁用/反禁用) but does not explain what happens to the document, whether it requires authorization, or whether the operation can be undone.

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 compact: a one-line summary followed by a structured Args list. Each parameter line conveys necessary details with no redundant text.

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 tool is an action-oriented operation with no annotations and only minimal context; the description lacks usage conditions, side effects, and error behavior. While the output schema exists and parameters are covered, the agent is not equipped to understand when this operation is appropriate or what consequences it carries.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively documents all four parameters with examples (form_id like BD_MATERIAL), common op_number values, and the split/selection rule for numbers vs ids. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a clear action: '执行金蝶云星空单据操作（禁用、反禁用等）', specifying the resource (Kingdee Cloud Star documents) and concrete operation types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_bill/delete_bill, as execute_operation is a generic dispatch for operations such as Forbid/Enable, not covered by those specialized names.

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 choose execute_operation over sibling tools; there are no alternatives mentioned or exclusions. The description only explains parameter values, leaving the agent to infer applicability from examples like Forbid/Enable.

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