feishu_update_doc

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 mentions the update modes and async task support, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 packed into a single Chinese sentence that covers the core functionality and key feature (async support). Every element earns its place, though it could benefit from better structure (separating core function from additional features).

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 complex mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after invocation, error conditions, permission requirements, or how different update modes affect the document. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the update modes (already in schema) and async task support (already documented in the task_id parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('更新云文档' - update cloud document) and lists the specific update modes available (overwrite/append/replace_range/etc.), which provides good specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'feishu_create_doc' or 'feishu_fetch_doc' beyond the 'update' verb.

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 mentions support for asynchronous task_id queries, which provides some context about when this might be useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose specific update modes, when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'feishu_create_doc', or any prerequisites for using the tool effectively.

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