设置群管理员

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a non-destructive write. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the operation requires specific permissions (e.g., only group owner), whether it is reversible, or what happens on failure. It merely restates the action without disclosing side effects or edge cases.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the action. No wasted words, clearly communicates the purpose and scope.

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 mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks any usage context such as prerequisites, return behavior, or limitations. Given the openWorldHint and lack of idempotency, an agent might need more context to understand the effect of repeated calls or potential error conditions. Overall, it is adequate but not rich.

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%, with descriptions for all three parameters (enable, user_id, group_id). The tool description does not add any further meaning about the parameters; it only implies the operation. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 a specific action: setting or canceling administrator permissions for a group member, using explicit verbs '设置' (set) and '取消' (cancel) with the resource '群成员的管理员权限' (group member's admin permission). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_group_kick or set_group_ban by focusing on admin role management.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it does not indicate when one should use this instead of other group management tools. The description is purely a statement of function without context.

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