unaudit_bill

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action (unaudit) without explaining side effects (e.g., that this is a state-changing operation, requires certain permissions, may fail if already un-audited, or is irreversible). It does not describe the outcome or return value. The parameter constraint about numbers/ids is helpful but does not cover the tool's behavioral impact.

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 well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a formatted Args section. No unnecessary detail or fluff. The parameter documentation is organized with clear examples and constraints, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return value explanation is not required), the description lacks critical context for a mutation tool. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, does not explain when to use it, and does not disclose side effects or prerequisites. For a tool that alters document state, this is a significant gap. The description covers parameters well but omits the broader operational context users need.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section carries the full burden. It clearly explains each parameter: form_id provides examples (BD_MATERIAL, SAL_SaleOrder), numbers is described as document numbers with comma-separated examples, and ids as internal IDs. It also explicitly states that numbers and ids are mutually exclusive (二选一), which is crucial operational semantics beyond the schema's property definitions.

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 the tool's function: '反审核金蝶云星空单据' (unaudit Kingdee Cloud Starry Sky documents). It uses a specific verb ('unaudit') and resource (Kingdee Cloud documents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_bill, delete_bill, and submit_bill. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that audit_bill is the inverse operation, nor does it explain scenarios where unaudit_bill is preferred over delete_bill or push_bill. The only usage hint is the parameter constraint that numbers and ids are mutually exclusive (二选一), which is parameter-level rather than tool-level guidance.

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