设置群名片

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that an empty string clears the card (via the 'card' parameter description, not the main description). The main description does not disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, or what happens on failure. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that states the action and target. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It earns a 4 because it is efficient and clear, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks context about permission requirements (bot needs to be admin to set group cards) and the effect of the 'card' parameter being optional. An agent could call it correctly based on schema, but richer context would improve reliability.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'card' parameter description ('传空字符串清除' = pass empty string to clear) is valuable but lives in the schema, not the description. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb ('设置' = set) and resource ('指定群成员在本群的群名片' = the group card/nickname of a specified group member in this group). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_group_name (group name) and set_group_remark (group remark), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 the tool is for setting a member's group card, which is distinct from the many sibling tools. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., bot permissions to modify group cards). The context is clear enough for an agent to select it among siblings, but alternatives are not named.

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