append_feishu_document

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

With no annotations, the description provides crucial behavioral info: append-only, non-destructive operation (no delete/overwrite/clear), and support for Markdown/plain text/tables. It covers key traits but omits error handling or auth requirements.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Front-loads the action and immediately clarifies what the tool does and does not do. Every word earns its place.

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 simple append tool with two well-described parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, behavior, and content types. No 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by specifying 'tables' alongside Markdown/plain text for content, and 'at the end' for the append behavior. This enhances the schema's meaning.

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 tool appends Markdown, plain text, or tables to the end of a Feishu document. It uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('Feishu document'), and distinguishes from siblings like update by explicitly stating no deletion or overwrite.

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 clarifies when to use (to add content without affecting existing content) and what it avoids (no delete/overwrite/clear). It implicitly suggests not using for replacement, but does not name alternatives explicitly. With sibling tools listed, the guidance is adequate.

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