sendCardFeishu

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 states the tool sends an interactive card, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon success/failure. The mention of 'JSON string' format is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from slight structural improvements like separating format requirements from the main action. The Chinese brackets are unnecessary but don't significantly impact readability.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and card format but lacks crucial context: authentication needs, response format, error conditions, rate limits, and how to interpret 'receive_id_type' enum values. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, which it doesn't.

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 only 33% (1 of 3 parameters has descriptions), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for the 'card' parameter by specifying it must be a 'Feishu interactive card JSON string' with examples of required components ('header/elements or template_id + template_variable'). However, it provides no additional semantics for 'receive_id_type' or 'receive_id', leaving those parameters under-documented.

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 ('send') and resource ('interactive card') with specific platform context ('Feishu IM'). It distinguishes from sibling 'sendMessageFeishu' by specifying card-based messaging, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sendMessageFeishu' or other messaging tools. The description mentions the card must be a JSON string, but this is a technical requirement rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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