feishu_oauth_batch_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a batch authorization tool, implying it performs a write/mutation operation (granting permissions). However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as what specific permissions are granted, whether this requires admin privileges, potential rate limits, or what happens if authorization fails. The description adds some context (e.g., it's for 'all user permissions'), but more behavioral transparency would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that clearly state the purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with specific conditions for use, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a batch authorization operation with no parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., success/failure responses, side effects). For a mutation tool with no structured data support, the description does a good job but could be more comprehensive about outcomes or errors.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (which is minimal since there are no parameters). This score reflects that the description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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: '飞书批量授权工具，一次性授权应用已开通的所有用户权限' (Feishu batch authorization tool, authorizes all user permissions for the application at once). It specifies the verb ('授权' - authorize) and resource ('应用已开通的所有用户权限' - all user permissions for the application), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'feishu_oauth' or 'lark_oauth_complete', which may handle different authorization scenarios.

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: '仅在用户明确要求'授权所有权限'、'一次性授权'时使用' (Only use when the user explicitly requests 'authorize all permissions' or 'one-time authorization'). It clearly states when to use this tool (on explicit user request) and implies when not to use it (e.g., for partial or incremental authorization, which might be handled by other tools like 'feishu_oauth'). This is a strong, directive guideline.

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