feishu_bitable_app_table_field

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool operates 'as the user' (implying user-level permissions) and lists the four action types, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when fields are deleted. The description adds basic operational context but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first establishes context and purpose, second lists the four actions. Every phrase adds value with no wasted words. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the action list earlier, but overall it's well-organized and concise.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about purpose and actions. However, it doesn't explain return values, error handling, or complex parameter interactions (like how property interacts with type). Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete operational 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?

The schema has 90% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly listing the four action types (create, list, update, delete) which helps the agent understand the primary parameter 'action'. However, it doesn't explain parameter dependencies or provide additional context beyond what's already in the well-documented 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's purpose with specific verbs (create/query/update/delete fields) and resource (Feishu Bitable app table fields). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like bitableCreateRecord (records) and feishu_bitable_app_table (tables) by focusing specifically on field/column management.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('when user requests create/query/update/delete fields, adjust table structure'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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