全员禁言

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

The description discloses that this is a mutating operation and adds the permission requirement ('需要群管理权限'), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe side effects on existing individual mutes or error cases, but the annotations already clarify read-only and destructive hints.

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 packs the action, scope, parameter meaning, and permission requirement without unnecessary filler. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description together with the schema covers purpose, parameter semantics, and required permissions. It lacks explicit return-value or error details, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 clear descriptions for both 'enable' and 'group_id'. The description largely restates the enable semantics already present in the schema, adding no significant new parameter detail, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action (开启或关闭), the resource (指定群的全员禁言), and the exact meaning of the enable parameter. The word '全员' distinguishes it from the member-level mute operations among siblings.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool to toggle whole-group mute, and it explicitly requires group management permissions. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use it, though the '全员' scope makes the intended use fairly obvious.

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