feishu_upload_image

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 successfully reveals two critical behavioral traits: 1) the tool returns a file_token (output behavior), and 2) it requires specific permissions ('drive:drive:media:upload'). This provides essential context about authentication requirements and output format that isn't available elsewhere.

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 efficient - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral context (permission requirements). There's zero wasted text, and the warning symbol appropriately highlights the permission requirement.

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 2-parameter upload tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the key output (file_token) and permission requirements. However, it doesn't mention file size limits, supported formats, error conditions, or whether the upload is synchronous/asynchronous. Given the complexity of file upload operations, there are some behavioral gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain usage patterns, constraints, or relationships between file_path and document_id. The baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('上传图片' - upload image) and target resource ('飞书' - Feishu). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'feishu_insert_image' by explaining it provides the file_token needed for that tool, establishing a clear functional relationship.

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 clear context about when to use this tool - to upload images and obtain file_tokens for insertion operations. It explicitly mentions the sibling tool 'feishu_insert_image' as the downstream consumer. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternative upload methods.

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