feishu_create_spreadsheet

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 creates a spreadsheet and returns a token and URL, which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or whether the creation is reversible. 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 two sentences that directly state the purpose and return values, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool creates a resource (moderate complexity), has no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and return values but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps in understanding permissions and error handling, making it just viable but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (title and folder_token) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 ('创建新的飞书电子表格' - create new Feishu spreadsheet) and resource, with a specific verb and resource type. It distinguishes from siblings like feishu_read_spreadsheet (read vs. create) and feishu_write_spreadsheet (write to existing vs. create new), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from feishu_create_document or feishu_create_bitable which also create resources, missing a 5.

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_create_document or feishu_create_bitable for different document types, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among creation tools.

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