写入多维表格记录

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It covers batch limit, mode-specific record structure, and field value type conventions, which are essential for correct invocation. However, it does not disclose partial-failure handling, idempotency, or overwrite semantics—traits an agent would need for a side-effectful write operation.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, batch limit, mode semantics, value conventions, and prerequisite advice are delivered in three sentences. Every sentence contributes non-redundant information with no filler.

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 batch write tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential invocation details: mode, records shape, value types, and a prerequisite check. Missing error/response behavior is a gap, but it is not fatal for constructing a correct request.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds a crucial mapping of Feishu field types (text, select, date, boolean, number) to JSON value conventions, which is absent from the schema. It also clarifies that update mode requires each item to contain both record_id and fields, a conditional requirement not enforced by the static schema.

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 batch adds or updates records in Feishu bitable, naming both the operation and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_feishu_base_records and describe_feishu_base by focusing on writing records, and the sibling list confirms write_feishu_doc/write_feishu_sheet target different resources.

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?

It explicitly advises using describe_feishu_base to confirm writable fields, which is a clear prerequisite. It also implies usage scope by focusing on bitable records, but does not explicitly exclude other write tools. The mode guidance helps select between create/update parameters, but no alternative tools are named for exclusion.

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