submit_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 disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'submit' without mentioning preconditions, whether it's a write operation, potential irreversibility, required permissions, or what state the document transitions to. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation 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 compact and well-structured, with a one-line purpose followed by a clear Args list. It avoids fluff. However, it is quite terse and could benefit from a usage sentence, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations and an output schema, the description should explain the submission lifecycle, required prior states, and effects. It does not. For an ERP tool, this is insufficient for an agent to make an informed invocation, despite the output schema covering return values.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: form_id is given with concrete examples, numbers is explained with format and examples, and ids is clarified, including the important constraint that numbers and ids are mutually exclusive. This goes well 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 states a specific verb ('提交' = submit) and resource ('金蝶云星空单据' = Kingdee Cloud documents). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit, save, or delete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate 'submit' from 'submit for approval' or describe the exact workflow state change, leaving some ambiguity for non-domain users.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_bill or save_bill. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it. No exclusion criteria or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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