confirm_oa_flow_numbers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two real traits: it does not open detail records, and it halts on conflict. That is genuinely useful. But it omits whether the operation is read-only, what the verification number is used for, and what happens to already-processed rows, leaving significant gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a tool taking an array of opaque row objects plus an optional list of keys, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin to call the tool correctly.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. '列表' loosely hints that rows is a list of records, but historical_keys is never mentioned and no format, shape, or meaning is given for either. An agent cannot populate historical_keys from this description.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('生成列表查重校验号' – generate a list duplicate-check verification number), which is more than a tautology of the name. However, it never clarifies what a '查重校验号' is or how it relates to 'confirm_oa_flow_numbers', and it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like check_oa_readonly_readiness. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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?

'不打开详情，发现冲突就暂停' describes behavior rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. No sibling tool is named, no precondition or when-not case is stated. The agent must guess when this is preferred over open_greencloud_oa_command or the other readiness checks.

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