lark_bitable_create_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'write a new record' without disclosing behavior such as idempotency, duplicate handling, or requirements (e.g., existence of app_token and table_id). This is insufficient for a write operation.

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, highly concise and front-loaded. It contains no filler, but its brevity sacrifices detail that could be expected for a create operation.

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?

Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return values (e.g., created record ID), error scenarios, and prerequisites, making it insufficient for confident agent invocation.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The fields parameter includes an example, adding value beyond the schema. However, the descriptions are basic and do not explain constraints like formatting or allowed characters, so baseline 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 '向飞书多维表格写入一条新记录' clearly states the action (write/create) and resource (Feishu bitable), making it distinct from sibling tools like lark_bitable_list_records. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'insert a new row') and does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lark_bitable_list_records for reading). The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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