create_bitable_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it creates an application and returns JSON with app_token, which implies a write operation with a specific output. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the name already exists. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 front-loaded: the first line states the purpose clearly, followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the structure could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points), but it's efficient.

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 has an output schema (returns JSON with app_token), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, as a creation tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more about behavioral aspects like permissions or idempotency to be fully complete.

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 adds meaningful semantics: it explains that 'name' is the multi-dimensional table name and 'folder_token' is optional for specifying the creation location. This clarifies beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., length limits for name). With 0% coverage, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 verb '创建' (create) and resource '多维表格应用' (multi-dimensional table application), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'copy_bitable_app' or 'create_bitable_record' by specifying it creates an application rather than copying or creating records. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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, when this tool is appropriate versus other creation tools, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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