Feishu MCP Server

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 performs batch deletion but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether deletions are permanent, require specific permissions, have rate limits, or affect related data. The phrase '删除结果' (deletion result) is vague and doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., success/failure status, error details).

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and return value. It uses bullet-like formatting in Chinese. However, the '返回' (return) section is overly vague ('删除结果' - deletion result) and could be more informative. Overall, it's appropriately sized with no redundant information.

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 (batch deletion with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which should document return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, error handling). The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but the description should still guide usage relative to siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters (app_token, table_id, record_ids) with brief Chinese explanations that add basic meaning beyond the schema's English titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., token format, ID structure), constraints (e.g., max records in batch), or examples. The value added is minimal but covers all parameters.

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 ('批量删除' - batch delete) and resource ('多维表格记录' - bitable records). It distinguishes from siblings like batch_create_bitable_records and batch_update_bitable_records by specifying the delete operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from single-record deletion tools like update_bitable_record (which might include deletion).

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 when batch deletion is preferred over single-record deletion, nor does it reference sibling tools like batch_update_bitable_records (which might handle deletions differently) or create_bitable_record (for creation). No context about prerequisites or constraints is given.

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