dingtalk_doc_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'create' which implies mutation, but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or behavior on invalid inputs. The '指定位置' nuance adds only minimal behavioral context.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple create operation with 3 well-documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, with no output schema, it could mention what is returned (e.g., document ID) or any prerequisites like authentication, which is lacking.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions '指定位置' which maps to parent_id, but the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb '创建' (create), the resource '新钉钉文档' (new DingTalk document), and the location constraint '在指定位置' (at specified location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_update and doc_read, which handle different operations.

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 usage for creating a new DingTalk document at a specific location, which is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no other doc creation sibling tool, so the guidance is adequate.

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