feishu_insert_image

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. While it mentions the file token requirement, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool (image insertion) with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral 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 - just two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first, followed by the important constraint about file tokens.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or side effects. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for using this tool effectively is incomplete given its complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions file token usage but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('插入图片' - insert image) and resource ('在飞书文档中' - in Feishu document), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feishu_upload_image (which uploads images) and feishu_append_content (which adds text content). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other insertion tools like feishu_insert_table or feishu_insert_diagram.

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 '支持通过文件 token 插入已上传的图片' (supports inserting already uploaded images via file token), suggesting this tool should be used after feishu_upload_image. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like feishu_append_content for different content types, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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