feishu_oauth

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool performs a destructive operation (revocation), it automatically extracts user context from messages without requiring explicit user_open_id parameter, and it has strict invocation constraints based on user intent. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like data loss or authentication state changes.

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 zero wasted sentences. It opens with the core purpose, immediately provides usage guidelines with positive and negative examples, and explains the automatic parameter handling. Every sentence serves a clear purpose in guiding the agent's decision-making.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides excellent contextual completeness regarding usage scenarios and behavioral constraints. It effectively compensates for the lack of structured annotations. The only minor gap is the absence of information about what happens after revocation or potential error conditions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'action' clearly documented as 'revoke: 撤销当前用户已保存的授权凭据'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, but since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '飞书用户撤销授权工具' (Feishu user authorization revocation tool), specifying the exact action (revoke authorization) and target (Feishu users). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lark_oauth_start' or 'feishu_oauth_batch_auth' by focusing exclusively on revocation, not initiation or other OAuth operations.

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 with clear when-to-use examples ('撤销授权', '取消授权', '退出登录', '清除授权') and when-not-to-use scenarios ('重新授权', '发起授权', '授权失败', etc.). It explicitly states that authorization processes are handled automatically by the system and should not be manually invoked, offering clear alternatives for different user intents.

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