feishu_append_content

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 the tool appends content and supports Markdown format, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with just two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and key capability (Markdown support). Every word earns its place - no redundant information, no unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by important format details.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical contextual information: what permissions are needed, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the document doesn't exist, what the return value contains, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies documents, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it correctly.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces that content supports Markdown format (already in schema) and implies document_id refers to Feishu documents (implied by tool name). No additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides are included. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('向飞书文档末尾追加内容' - append content to the end of a Feishu document) and specifies the resource (Feishu document). It distinguishes from siblings like feishu_update_content (which likely modifies existing content) and feishu_create_document (which creates new documents). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like feishu_insert_callout or feishu_insert_table, which are more specific insertion operations.

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 implies usage context through '向飞书文档末尾追加内容' (append to end of document), suggesting this is for adding content to existing documents rather than creating new ones or modifying specific sections. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like feishu_update_content (for modifying existing content) or feishu_insert_* tools (for inserting at specific positions). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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