feishu_insert_callout

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 insertion operation ('插入'), implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. 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 appropriately concise - two sentences that state the tool's purpose and usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be more specific about the callout's purpose rather than listing generic examples.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or what the tool returns. While the schema covers parameters well, the description lacks critical context needed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '高亮块' (callout block) which relates to the tool's purpose but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 tool's purpose: '在飞书文档中插入高亮块（Callout）' (inserts a callout block in Feishu documents). It specifies the verb ('插入' - insert) and resource ('飞书文档' - Feishu document), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning '高亮块' (callout block) rather than other content types like tables or images. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'feishu_append_content' or 'feishu_update_content'.

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 some usage context: '用于突出显示提示、警告、注意事项等信息' (used to highlight tips, warnings, notes, etc.). This implies when to use it (for highlighting information) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools. No guidance on prerequisites or constraints is provided.

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