feishu_insert_table

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It mentions two input formats (Markdown or structured data) but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the core functionality. Every word earns its place: it specifies the action, location, and supported input formats without any redundancy or 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 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical contextual information like required permissions, error handling, response format, or how this tool relates to sibling operations. The agent lacks guidance on behavioral expectations beyond the basic functionality statement.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the two input format options (Markdown vs structured data), which corresponds to the markdown_table parameter versus headers+rows parameters. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents thoroughly.

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 ('插入表格' - insert table) and resource ('在飞书文档中' - in Feishu document), distinguishing it from sibling tools like feishu_append_content (general content) or feishu_insert_image (different element type). It precisely identifies what the tool does without being tautological.

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 through '支持 Markdown 表格语法或结构化数据输入' (supports Markdown table syntax or structured data input), suggesting this tool is for table insertion specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like feishu_create_spreadsheet (for spreadsheet creation) or feishu_write_spreadsheet (for spreadsheet writing), nor does it provide exclusion guidance.

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