设为精华消息

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the admin-permission requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral gate not covered by annotations. No further side effects are disclosed, but none are necessary for this simple 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?

Two short sentences with the core verb and object front-loaded, followed by the permission requirement. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema and annotations cover what an agent needs. The permission requirement is stated, and the only minor omission is return-value behavior, which is typically an acknowledgement for such setters.

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% – the one parameter message_id already has a description ('消息ID'). The tool description adds no extra format, sourcing, or type guidance, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action – marking a group message as an essence message ('将群内一条消息设为精华消息') – with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_essence_msg_list and other group-management tools.

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 explicitly states a key prerequisite: group admin permission ('需要群管理权限'), which tells an agent when invocation is valid. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives, but the sibling set makes the use case obvious.

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