copy_bitable_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool copies an app and returns JSON, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's a read-only or mutation operation, potential side effects (e.g., if the original app is affected), rate limits, or error handling. For a tool that likely involves data duplication and creation, 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 appropriately sized and structured with clear sections for parameters and returns. It uses bullet points effectively, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the initial line '复制多维表格应用' could be more front-loaded with additional context, and the structure, while good, isn't perfectly optimized for immediate comprehension.

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 (copying an app with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but overall completeness is adequate with noticeable gaps.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'app_token' as the token of the app to copy, 'name' as the name for the new app, and 'folder_token' as an optional folder token for specifying the creation location. This clarifies the purpose and usage of all parameters, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: '复制多维表格应用' (copy a multi-dimensional table application). It specifies the verb (copy) and resource (multi-dimensional table app), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_bitable_app', which might create a new app from scratch rather than copying an existing one.

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., needing an existing app to copy), compare it to 'create_bitable_app' for creating new apps, or specify scenarios where copying is preferred over creating. This lack of context leaves the agent without usage direction.

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