manage_bitable_app

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

No annotations provided; description covers the three actions but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or limits of creating/copying apps. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Single sentence effectively summarizes the tool's actions and key parameter dependencies. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains concise and front-loaded.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the three distinct operations. It could mention return types or error scenarios, but is adequate for actionable use.

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?

Description adds value beyond schema by noting that folder_id is optional and ignored when wiki_space_id is set, and that app_token can be a native token, wiki node, or Feishu URL. With 100% schema coverage, this is a good addition.

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 the tool manages a Bitable app and lists three specific actions (create, copy, get_meta), making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like manage_bitable_record or manage_bitable_table.

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?

Description lists actions and some parameter conditions (e.g., app_token required for copy/get_meta) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use manage_bitable_record for record-level operations.

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