feishu_create_bitable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return values (app_token and URL), which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: permission requirements, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the folder_token is invalid. For a creation tool 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating return values, but it misses key context for a creation tool: authentication needs, error handling, or interaction with siblings (e.g., feishu_add_bitable_records for populating the table). It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters (name and folder_token) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. 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 ('创建新的' - create new) and resource ('飞书多维表格' - Feishu Bitable), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like feishu_create_document or feishu_create_spreadsheet by specifying the Bitable type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., feishu_add_bitable_records adds to existing tables).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing folder access), compare with similar tools like feishu_create_spreadsheet, or specify use cases (e.g., initial setup vs. adding records).

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