feishu_task_section

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 lists actions but doesn't describe their effects (e.g., whether 'create' is idempotent, what 'patch' updates, or how 'list' handles pagination). It misses critical details like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving the agent with insufficient behavioral context.

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: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet-like list of actions. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded. However, the use of brackets and informal formatting slightly reduces clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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 (13 parameters, multiple actions) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how actions map to parameters. For a multi-action tool with high parameter count, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 77%, which is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the tool handles custom groups and lists actions, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'action' dictates which other parameters are relevant) or provide examples. It compensates slightly by clarifying the tool's scope, but doesn't fully address the 23% coverage gap.

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: '飞书任务自定义分组管理工具。用于创建、查询、更新自定义分组，以及列出分组内的任务。' It specifies the verb (manage custom groups) and resource (Feishu task custom groups), and lists the five specific actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like feishu_task_task or feishu_task_tasklist, which handle tasks and task lists respectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with sibling tools (e.g., feishu_task_task for individual tasks), or specify contexts where this tool is preferred. The only contextual hint is '以用户身份' (as a user), but this is vague and not operational.

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