新建采购

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions default status behavior and the effect of the quick flag, but does not state required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what the tool returns. This 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose first and then one key behavioral detail. It contains no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured to improve readability.

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's complexity (18 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not mention the return value, common usage patterns, or the behavior of the many optional fields, leaving the agent with insufficient context for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is high (94%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification about the interaction between quick and status defaults, but most parameter semantics are already covered by the schema, and it does not provide additional meaningful detail.

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 ('新增' / add) and resource ('采购记录' / purchase record), making it immediately clear that this tool creates a new purchase. The action is distinct from sibling tools like purchase.update, purchase.delete, purchase.get, and purchase.list, so an agent can differentiate without additional context.

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 such as expense.create or purchase.update. It only implies usage through its purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any exclusions or alternatives.

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