feishu_create_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the fact that a calendar is created. It does not say whether the calendar is private or shared, what permissions are required, whether the call is idempotent, or what the response returns on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the action statement front-loaded before the trigger phrases. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (3 flat params, no output schema) and the schema documents all inputs, so the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should have covered the mutation semantics and success behavior, which are absent.

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% and each of the three fields (color, summary, description) is documented inline, including format hints like hex color. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema, not the prose, does the work here.

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 pairs a specific verb (创建/create) with a specific resource (飞书日历), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like feishu_update_calendar or feishu_delete_calendar, but the create/read/update/delete distinction is unambiguous from the verb alone.

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?

It gives concrete trigger utterances ('创建日历', '新建日历') that map user intent to this tool, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g., pre-existing calendar, subscribing to an existing one), so it falls one step short of the top score.

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