manage_bitable_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose the notable limitation that the Feishu API does not expose view updates, and suggests a workaround. However, it does not warn about the destructive nature of the 'delete' action or mention any side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The disclosed limitation adds value, but safety-critical aspects of mutation are absent.

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 compact and effectively structured: it opens with the core purpose, lists supported actions, and then highlights the update limitation with a practical workaround. Every sentence carries information, and there is no redundant or distracting content. The '[Official API]' tag is minor but not harmful.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the core function and a key limitation, which is helpful. However, it could be more complete by explicitly noting that delete is irreversible and clarifying which parameters are required for each action (though schema covers this). Overall, the description is quite complete for the complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists actions, while the schema already explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., view_id required for delete, view_type options). No additional semantic context is provided, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool manages views in a Bitable table and enumerates the supported actions (list, create, delete). It distinguishes this from sibling tools that target other resources (app, table, field, record) by explicitly naming 'views' and the table 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 gives clear context: use this tool for list/create/delete operations on Bitable views. It also provides a valuable workaround for view updates (recreate with a new name), which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer other Manage Bitable tools for non-view operations, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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