写入飞书文档

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of replace (discards original content) and clarifies that replace_text requires exact text matching. It also states the create return value. It doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or error cases, but the key side effects are transparent.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists all modes with their constraints. Every sentence contributes useful behavioral or semantic information; there is no redundancy or 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?

The description explains create's return value but is silent about append/replace/replace_text return values or error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves some ambiguity for an agent. However, the mode semantics and destructive warnings cover the most critical operational aspects.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining the mode enum values in detail, noting that content is Markdown, and emphasizing that pattern must match exactly. This goes beyond the bare schema 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 identifies the tool's purpose: writing Markdown content to Feishu cloud documents (docx/wiki). It enumerates four distinct modes (create, append, replace, replace_text), each with a specific verb and resource, and the modes naturally distinguish it from sibling read/search/sheet tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode, including a caution for replace ('慎用') and a recommendation for replace_text for small changes. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or conditions to avoid this tool, but the mode-level guidance is strong enough to route correct usage.

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