create_bitable_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it creates a record but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't provide adequate behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 parameters and returns, and reasonably concise. However, the '返回' section could be more informative given it has an output schema, and some sentences could be more 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidance, behavioral context, and comprehensive parameter semantics. The existence of an output schema helps, but overall completeness is limited.

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 lists all three parameters with brief explanations and an example for 'fields', adding some semantic context beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, this only partially compensates - it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or provide comprehensive examples for 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 ('创建单条记录' - create a single record) and resource ('在多维表格中' - in a multi-dimensional table), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_create_bitable_records' or 'create_bitable_app', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling tools available (e.g., batch_create_bitable_records, create_bitable_app, search_bitable_records), there's no mention of when this single-record creation is preferred over batch operations or other related tools.

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