feishu_calendar_event_attendee

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 two actions (create and list) but provides minimal behavioral context. No information about permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, whether operations are idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately concise - three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's domain, usage context, and available actions. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from action enumeration.

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 tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how the different parameters interact (e.g., which parameters are needed for create vs list actions). The description provides basic orientation but leaves critical operational details unspecified.

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 67%, providing decent parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'create' and 'list' actions which correspond to the 'action' parameter enum, but provides no additional semantic context about when to use which parameters or how they interact. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the moderate schema coverage.

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: '飞书日程参会人管理工具' (Feishu calendar event attendee management tool) and specifies actions 'create（添加参会人）, list（查询参会人列表）'. It distinguishes from some siblings like calendar event tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other attendee-related tools that might exist. The verb+resource combination is specific and actionable.

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 some usage context: '当用户要求邀请/添加参会人、查看参会人列表时使用' (use when users request to invite/add attendees or view attendee lists). This gives implied guidance on when to use it, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned.

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