feishu_write_spreadsheet

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 a write operation but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: whether this overwrites existing data or appends, what permissions are required, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens when ranges don't match data dimensions. The description only covers basic functionality without operational context.

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 with just two sentences that directly state the core functionality and key capabilities. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently communicates the essential features.

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 write operation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, data format requirements beyond '二维数组数据', or how it interacts with existing spreadsheet content. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered for a mutation tool.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning support for specifying worksheets and ranges, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 action ('写入数据' - write data) and target resource ('飞书电子表格' - Feishu spreadsheet), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feishu_read_spreadsheet by specifying write vs. read operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other write operations 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions support for specifying worksheets and ranges, it doesn't explain when this write operation is appropriate compared to feishu_append_content, feishu_update_content, or other data manipulation tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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