manage_bitable_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions actions and that update is for rename, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., irreversibility of delete), required permissions, or rate limits. For a CRUD 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?

The description is a single sentence that concisely states the purpose and actions. It is front-loaded with '[Official API]' and avoids unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the main actions but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, and return values (no output schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and multiple actions, additional context would improve completeness.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal context (e.g., 'with optional initial fields' for create, 'rename' for update). Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool manages tables in a Bitable app with clear actions (list, create, update, delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_bitable_field and manage_bitable_record by focusing on table-level operations.

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 implies usage for table management but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other bitable management tools (e.g., manage_bitable_field). No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are given.

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