create_feishu_bitable_view

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the creation is destructive, if it overrides existing views, permission requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. The description only states the action without clarifying behavior beyond creation.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness to include more context.

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?

The tool has four parameters (three required), an output schema, and no enums. The description does not mention return values or confirmation, but the output schema partially compensates. Behavioral details like default view type or conflict handling are missing, making it adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a view in a specified table and lists the view types (grid, kanban, gallery, gantt, or form). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_feishu_bitable_record or create_feishu_bitable_formula_field by specifying the resource type (view). However, it lacks further differentiation about what a view represents in Feishu Bitable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other creation tools. There are no when-not use cases or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states the action without contextual usage advice.

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