feishu_bitable_app_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behavioral aspects: it describes the multi-action nature (create/list/patch/batch_create), field definition strategies, and the relationship with sibling tools. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and usage context. The two paragraphs efficiently cover tool scope, actions, and field strategies. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value without 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 complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the multi-action pattern, field definition approaches, and sibling relationships. However, it doesn't describe return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.

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 75% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It explains the two field definition approaches (one-time vs. exploratory) and their trade-offs, which helps users understand when to use the 'fields' parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional context for other parameters like page_size or table_id usage.

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: '飞书多维表格数据表管理工具' (Feishu multi-dimensional table data table management tool) with specific actions (create/list/patch/batch_create). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like feishu_bitable_app_table_field (for field management) and feishu_bitable_app_table_record (for record management) by focusing on table-level 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: '当用户要求创建/查询/管理数据表时使用' (use when users request to create/query/manage data tables). It also offers detailed alternatives for field definition approaches (one-time vs. exploratory) and references the sibling tool feishu_bitable_app_table_field for gradual field modification.

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