发送合并转发

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context about the merged-forward format and node structure, but it does not disclose permission requirements, failure behavior, or side effects beyond sending.

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 compact sentences deliver the operation, the mode, and the essential payload structure without filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter detail is logically placed second.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential call shape and the non-obvious node structure well. Minor omissions, such as explicitly tying message to the send_forward_node workflow or noting group membership requirements, are not critical at this complexity level.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds real value by specifying the exact node shape {type:'node',data:{uin,nickname,content}}, which the schema's generic array items do not provide. This materially helps an agent construct the message parameter correctly.

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 names a specific action (send merged-forward messages to a group), identifies the payload type (node messages built by send_forward_node), and makes the tool's purpose distinct from ordinary group message sending. The resource and operation are both clear.

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 workflow is implied: build node messages with send_forward_node, then send them as a merged forward. However, the description does not explicitly contrast this with send_group_msg or send_msg, nor does it state when this tool should be preferred over alternatives.

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