bitableUpdateRecord

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 states this is an update operation ('更新'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of '部分更新' (partial update) adds some context about scope, but overall, critical behavioral details are missing for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating key points). Every sentence contributes value, making it efficient though not perfectly optimized.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, return values, and usage context. This is inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics: it mentions 'fields' as a JSON string for modifying fields, but doesn't explain the purpose or format of app_token, table_id, or record_id. This partially compensates for one parameter but leaves three undocumented, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 verb ('更新' meaning 'update') and resource ('record_id 的字段' meaning 'fields of record_id'), specifying it's a partial update. It distinguishes from bitableCreateRecord (create vs update) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list. The purpose is specific but could better highlight its unique scope among siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions '部分更新' (partial update), which implies usage for modifying specific fields, but it doesn't state when to choose this over bitableCreateRecord or other update-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not clearly defined.

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