feishu_create_document

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 mentions the creation action and return value (URL), but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens with duplicate titles. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 (one sentence in Chinese) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key aspects: action, parameters (title/content), format (Markdown), and return value (URL). Every element earns its place.

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 creation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return value but lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors, etc.) that would be important for a mutation operation. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally say more about the response structure beyond just 'URL'.

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 mentions title and Markdown content but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of Markdown usage, title constraints beyond length). The folder_token parameter isn't mentioned at all in the description. 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 specific action ('创建新的飞书文档' - create new Feishu document), the resources involved (document with title and Markdown content), and distinguishes it from siblings like feishu_read_document (read) and feishu_update_content (update). It explicitly mentions the return value (URL), which helps differentiate from other creation tools like feishu_create_bitable or feishu_create_spreadsheet.

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 (creating new documents with Markdown content) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like feishu_append_content (for adding to existing documents) or feishu_update_content (for modifying existing content). No guidance is provided about prerequisites, permissions, or when not to use this tool.

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