set_group_remarkSet a custom remark for a group to change how the bot displays the group name, without altering the real group name.
为指定群设置「我」在本群的备注名（只改机器人自己看到的群名，不改真实群名）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remark | Yes | 群备注 | |
| group_id | Yes | 目标群号 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral boundary: the real group name is not changed, only the remark visible to the bot. This is valuable beyond what annotations provide.
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 sentence with no filler, and the key scoping constraint is front-loaded. Every element earns its place.
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 two-parameter setter with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the action and its side-effect boundary. It does not cover failure or error behavior, but that is not essential for this straightforward mutation.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds semantic weight to 'remark' by clarifying it is the bot's own remark name in that group and that the change is local-only, which is not obvious from the schema's terse '群备注'.
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 uses a specific verb (设置/set) and resource (群备注/group remark) and explicitly defines the scope: it only changes the bot's locally viewed group name, not the real group name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_group_name and other set_* 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 provides clear context by stating that this tool affects only the bot's own view of the group name. This implies when to use it versus set_group_name, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or list when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.