send_card_as_user

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the bot-only nature, the disabled user-identity path, and version requirement. It does not mention side effects or return behavior, but the mutation intent is clear and non-destructive.

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 relatively concise with two sentences, though it includes some technical detail (e.g., script reference). It front-loads the key purpose and version requirement, making it efficient.

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 simple send action, the description covers input format, identity constraints, and version info. It does not describe output or error handling, but with no output schema, this is acceptable. It is sufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by specifying that 'card' must be a JSON object following Feishu card schema with a link, and that 'chat_id' can be oc_xxx or open_id. This goes beyond the schema 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?

The description explicitly states the tool sends an interactive Feishu card via bot identity, with clear verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by noting the 'as_user' suffix is historical and the tool always routes through bot.

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 clearly indicates bot-only usage and explains the historical naming, implying when to use this tool (for card sending with bot identity) and when not to (if user identity needed). It lacks explicit alternatives but provides sufficient context.

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