save_bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does mention the auto-wrap behavior for Model keys, which is a positive detail, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects of overwriting data, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 clear one-sentence purpose followed by a two-item Args list. Each line adds value, from the purpose to the examples and the auto-wrap note. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary filler.

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 both parameters with examples and explains the create/update nature. With an output schema present, not detailing return values is acceptable. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing form IDs) or failure modes, leaving minor context gaps.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates thoroughly by explaining both form_id and model_data, providing a concrete JSON example, and noting the automatic wrapping of data without a Model key. This goes far beyond the bare schema type declarations.

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 '保存金蝶云星空单据（新增或更新）' (save Kingdee Cloud documents, create or update), which specifies the verb and resource. It includes concrete examples of form IDs (BD_MATERIAL, SAL_SaleOrder), distinguishing this from sibling tools like query_bill and submit_bill.

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 usage for creating or updating documents but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like submit_bill or audit_bill. It lacks exclusion conditions or scenarios where this tool should not be used, relying instead on the tool name and basic context.

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