send_card_as_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the bot identity routing, the historical naming artifact, and the disabled user-identity path, which are the key behavioral traits for this tool. The extra reference to a brute-force script adds credibility but also unnecessary noise, preventing a perfect score.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence includes a verbose reference to 'exhaustive brute-force in v1.3.9, see scripts/explore-card-protobuf.js' which is not actionable for an agent and adds unnecessary length. The historical naming explanation is useful but could be more tightly integrated.

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 2-parameter send tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it sends, who it sends as, and how to format the card. However, it omits any mention of return values (e.g., message_id, success status) or error/rate-limit behavior, leaving some operational context incomplete for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for the `card` parameter by specifying it should be a JSON object, providing a link to the Feishu card schema, and suggesting a workflow (build visually then paste JSON). This goes beyond the schema's terse description and justifies a score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') with a clear direct object ('interactive Feishu card') and explicit routing ('to a chat via bot identity'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also clarifies the misleading 'as_user' suffix by explaining it's historical naming, distinguishing it from sibling send tools like send_as_user and send_message_as_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 explicitly states the tool is bot-only and that the user-identity path is server-side disabled, giving clear when-not guidance. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools directly, but the context strongly implies this is the tool to use for card sending via bot, which is sufficient for most agent decisions.

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