feishu_doc_media

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 effectively describes key behaviors: the two distinct operations (insert/download), file size limits (20MB), supported formats for images, and the important constraint that insert only works with local files. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but covers essential operational constraints.

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 two clear sections: an overview of the two operations, followed by an important constraint note. Every sentence serves a purpose - the first explains what the tool does, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 does well to cover the essential context. It explains the two main operations, their requirements, and key constraints. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (output format) 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?

Schema description coverage is high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying that 'insert requires document ID + local file path' and 'download requires resource token + output path', but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's already well-documented in the schema properties.

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 ('insert' and 'download') and resources ('local images or files', 'document materials or whiteboard thumbnails'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'feishu_create_doc' and 'feishu_update_doc' by specifying it handles local file operations rather than URL-based media insertion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states 'insert only supports local file paths' and directs users to 'use create-doc/update-doc' for URL images, naming specific sibling tools. This clearly defines the scope and appropriate alternatives.

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