upload_bitable_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return value (file_token), the API endpoint, and the expected field value format, which is essential for correct usage. It does not cover permissions or failure modes, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple upload.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and API source. It compacts a lot of information efficiently, though it is somewhat long and could benefit from splitting into two sentences.

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 tool is moderately complex with no output schema, but the description explains the return value (file_token) and downstream usage. It omits error conditions and permissions, but given the schema coverage and the clear return-handling guidance, it is sufficiently complete for selection and basic invocation.

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 context by mapping 'kind' to bitable_image or bitable_file and clarifies the file_token format, but it does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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, referencing the specific API endpoint and parent_type values. It differentiates from sibling upload tools (upload_file, upload_drive_file, upload_image) by targeting Bitable attachments and returning a file_token for use in record 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?

The description explains that the result is suitable for writing into a Bitable Attachment-type field via batch_create/update_bitable_records, giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the Bitable-specific scope and token-purpose guidance imply when to use it.

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