feishu_add_bitable_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'add' operation (implying mutation/write) but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate records, whether there are rate limits, what the response format looks like, or if there are size limits for the records array. For a write operation 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 extremely concise - just two short sentences that communicate the core purpose and one critical constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. The information is front-loaded with the main action stated first.

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 write operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding records (success/failure responses), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, especially for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds one useful constraint: '字段名需与表格字段名一致' (field names must match table field names), which provides important semantic context beyond the schema's technical description. However, this is the only parameter guidance provided, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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 ('向飞书多维表格添加记录' - add records to Feishu Bitable) and resource ('飞书多维表格' - Feishu Bitable), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like feishu_create_bitable (create table) and feishu_read_bitable (read table). However, it doesn't specify whether this adds single or multiple records, which could be more precise.

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 when to choose this over feishu_write_spreadsheet (for spreadsheets) or feishu_create_bitable (for creating new tables). There's also no mention of prerequisites like authentication requirements or permissions needed to add records.

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