bitableCreateRecord

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. The description mentions the fields parameter format but doesn't explain the creation process or response behavior.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that directly state what the tool does and provide essential parameter guidance. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste or redundancy.

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 mutation tool (create operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error handling, authentication needs, or the scope of the operation. The context signals show this is a 3-parameter tool with low schema coverage, requiring more comprehensive guidance.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage (only the 'fields' parameter has a description), the description compensates by explaining that 'fields' should be a 'JSON string: {"字段A":"val","字段B":123}', which adds crucial semantic context beyond the basic type declaration. This significantly helps understand how to format the fields parameter.

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 action ('创建一条记录' - create a record) and resource ('在指定数据表中' - in a specified data table), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bitableUpdateRecord, but the verb 'create' inherently distinguishes it from update operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for creating records in a specific table, it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like bitableListRecords or bitableUpdateRecord.

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