feishu_task_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions acting 'as the user' and that the 'list' action returns only tasks the user is responsible for, adding some context. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or mutation effects (e.g., whether updates are reversible). The description is insufficient for a multi-action tool with potential write operations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the tool's purpose and key actions. The time format note is relevant but could be integrated more smoothly. No redundant sentences; each part adds value, though the structure is slightly fragmented with bracketed text and a list.

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 (15 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, authentication, and action-specific parameter requirements. For a versatile tool with create/update capabilities, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 73%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the time format (already in schema) and lists action names (in schema enum). It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., which params are needed for each action) or provide usage examples, leaving gaps despite moderate schema coverage.

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 a 'Feishu task management tool for creating, querying, and updating tasks' with specific actions listed (create, get, list, patch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like feishu_task_comment or feishu_task_subtask by focusing on core task operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 implies usage through the listed actions (e.g., 'list' returns only tasks the user is responsible for) and mentions time format requirements, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feishu_task_subtask or calendar tools. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are provided.

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