feishu_insert_diagram

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 the action ('插入' - insert) which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the insertion is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The mention of '不指定则追加到文档末尾' (if not specified, append to document end) for block_id adds some behavioral context, but significant gaps remain for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first states the core purpose with specific details, second lists supported diagram types. Every element earns its place with no redundant information. The Chinese text is clear and direct without 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?

For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and parameter coverage but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or mutation implications. The completeness is minimal viable given the structured data available.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions Mermaid code and diagram types but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details. With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('插入' - insert), target resource ('飞书文档中' - in Feishu document), and content type ('Mermaid 架构图' - Mermaid diagram). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for diagrams using Feishu's '文本绘图' feature, unlike other insertion tools like feishu_insert_image, feishu_insert_table, or feishu_insert_callout.

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 by mentioning '使用飞书「文本绘图」功能' (using Feishu's 'text drawing' feature) and listing supported diagram types, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like feishu_insert_image for non-Mermaid diagrams or feishu_append_content for general text. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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