feishu_subscribe_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 nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the calendar is already subscribed, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.

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?

It is a single short bilingual phrase with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing. There is no structure to speak of because there is no substantive content.

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 mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry the safety and behavior profile; instead it offers only the name restated. The only element that is complete (the parameter list) is already covered by the schema.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents calendar_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 is a direct bilingual restatement of the tool name ('订阅日历 / Subscribe to calendar') with no added specificity. It tells the agent nothing the identifier did not already convey and does not distinguish it from its closest sibling, feishu_unsubscribe_calendar.

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 on when to subscribe, what precondition must hold (e.g. an existing calendar the caller can access), or how this relates to feishu_get_calendar_list / feishu_unsubscribe_calendar. The agent must infer usage 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.