upload_bitable_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uploads a file (a write operation) and returns a file_token. It does not specify authorization needs or side effects, but for a file upload, the behavior is well-understood.

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 with key technical details (API, return value, usage). It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for purpose and usage.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (file_token) and how to use it. It includes the API endpoint and parent_type parameterization. The context is complete for an agent to correctly invoke and process the tool.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining the 'kind' parameter (maps to parent_type values) and noting that file_path is an absolute path. It clarifies the relationship between parameters and the API call.

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 purpose: uploading a file as a Bitable attachment, with the specific API endpoint and parent_type parameter. It distinguishes this from other upload tools (upload_drive_file, upload_file, upload_image) by targeting Bitable attachments.

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 explains that the returned file_token is suitable for writing into Bitable Attachment-type fields, implying the usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling list includes other upload tools, providing implicit differentiation.

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