feishu_bitable_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but doesn't describe what 'delete' entails (permanent? reversible?), what 'copy' includes (structure only or with data?), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description mentions '以用户身份' (as user identity) which hints at authorization context but lacks specifics.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences: one stating purpose/context, one listing actions. The action list is comprehensive but could be more structured. No wasted words, though some information density could be improved by integrating action descriptions with parameter guidance.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how different actions affect parameter requirements. The high schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more operational context given the tool's complexity and mutation capabilities (create, patch, delete, copy).

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'action' values map to different parameter requirements, or provide examples of 'name' or 'folder_token' usage. The schema already documents parameters well, so the description doesn't add meaningful semantic value.

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's purpose: '飞书多维表格应用管理工具' (Feishu multi-dimensional table application management tool) with specific actions listed (create, get, list, patch, delete, copy). It distinguishes from siblings like bitableCreateRecord or feishu_bitable_app_table by focusing on app-level management rather than table/record operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar 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?

The description provides basic usage context: '当用户要求创建/查询/管理多维表格时使用' (use when user requests creating/querying/managing multi-dimensional tables). It implies this is for app-level operations but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. sibling tools like feishu_bitable_app_table or bitableCreateRecord, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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