create_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the two-step behavior: creating the doc in drive first, then attaching it as a Wiki node. This adds value beyond the name/schema, though it does not cover failure modes or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the optional wiki context. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy or 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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema) and rich schema descriptions, the description covers the essential nuances of Wiki placement. It doesn't need to explain return values. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the wiki placement logic already present in the schema descriptions (folder_id ignored when wiki_space_id set, wiki_parent_node_token defaults to root), adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the 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?

Description clearly states specific action: 'Create a new Feishu document.' It also distinguishes from siblings like create_folder or create_wiki_node by explaining the optional Wiki space placement and the drive-to-Wiki attachment flow, which is unique to this tool.

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?

Provides clear context: you can place the doc directly under a Wiki space using wiki_space_id and optionally nest it with wiki_parent_node_token. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives (e.g., create_wiki_node), but the context is sufficiently clear.

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