feishu_doc_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that actions include read operations (list, list_replies) and write operations (create, reply, patch), and mentions wiki token support. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return values look like for each action type.

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 with a clear opening statement followed by enumerated actions. Every sentence earns its place by explaining capabilities. It could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose, but overall it's well-organized without wasted words.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the five action types and wiki token support, but doesn't address return values, error handling, or detailed behavioral expectations for each action. Given the complexity, more comprehensive guidance would be helpful.

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 (82%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining that actions include list, create, reply, and patch operations, and mentions wiki token support. However, it doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema descriptions for most parameters.

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: '管理云文档评论' (manage cloud document comments) with specific verbs for each action (list, create, reply, patch). It distinguishes itself from siblings like feishu_task_comment by focusing on document comments rather than task comments, and from feishu_doc_media by handling comments rather than media.

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 each action (list, create, reply, patch) and mentions support for wiki tokens. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like feishu_task_comment or provide explicit sibling tool comparisons beyond the action differentiation within the tool itself.

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