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 the API call and return value but omits details such as permission requirements, rate limits, or file size constraints. Some behavioral context is present but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the official API designation and then clearly states functionality and usage context.

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 explains the return value and how to use it in Bitable record operations. Without an output schema, this is valuable. However, it lacks details on file limitations or asynchronous behavior, but overall is fairly complete for a simple upload 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., mapping the 'kind' parameter to parent_type values). It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 uploads a file as a Bitable attachment, specifying the API and the returned file_token. It distinguishes from sibling upload tools by its Bitable-specific context and the intended use for attachment fields.

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?

It explicitly states the result (file_token) and when it's suitable (for writing into Bitable Attachment fields). While it doesn't list alternatives, the purpose is clear enough to guide usage.

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