feishu_calendar_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job describing critical behaviors: the user impersonation context ('以用户身份'), mandatory parameters for visibility ('create must include user_open_id'), automatic expansion of recurring events, time range limits (40 days, 1000 instances), and format requirements (ISO 8601/RFC 3339). It could improve by mentioning error handling or rate limits, but covers most essential behavioral aspects.

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 with clear sections: purpose statement, usage context, action list, and important notes. While somewhat lengthy due to the tool's complexity, every sentence adds value - no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise but effectively balances completeness with readability.

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 tool's high complexity (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does an excellent job providing context. It explains the tool's scope, usage patterns, critical parameters, constraints, and format requirements. The main gap is the lack of output format description, but considering the action-oriented nature and detailed parameter guidance, it's mostly complete for agent usage.

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 90% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining parameter semantics in context: it clarifies that 'user_open_id' must come from SenderId for visibility, that 'list' uses 'instance_view' with automatic expansion, and provides format examples. It doesn't cover all 21 parameters but adds crucial context for the most important ones.

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 as a Feishu calendar event management tool with specific verbs (create, list, get, patch, delete, search, reply, instances, instance_view) and resources (calendar events). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on calendar events rather than other Feishu resources like documents, tasks, or chats.

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 guidelines: it specifies when to use the tool ('when user asks to view, create, modify, delete, search schedules, or reply to invitations'), includes important exclusions (e.g., 'create must include user_open_id'), and mentions constraints ('time range cannot exceed 40 days, max 1000 instances'). It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling calendar tools by focusing on events rather than calendars or attendees.

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