create_feishu_bitable_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a two-step behavior (query/validate then create), which is helpful. However, it does not detail error handling, side effects, or authentication requirements. The behavioral disclosure is moderate.

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 sentence in Chinese, efficiently conveying the two-step process. It is concise with no redundant words, though it could be structured into clearer segments. Still, it 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?

Despite the complexity of dynamic fields and the validation step, the description is sparse. It does not mention the output schema (which exists) or clarify what happens if validation fails. The reference to querying field structure is present but incomplete without specifying that list_feishu_bitable_fields is the tool for that. Lacks sufficient context for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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%, with all three parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on 'fields' object structure or valid values. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents parameters.

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's purpose: it first queries the Bitable field structure, validates field names, types, options, and read-only attributes, then creates a new record. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feishu_bitable_records (read) and update_feishu_bitable_record (modify).

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 a precondition (validate fields first) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or context about prerequisites like having queried field structure beforehand. The guidance is adequate but not thorough.

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