wechat_send_to_multiple_friends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that both unified and separate sending modes are supported, but it omits critical side-effect context such as required login state, rate limits, error handling for individual recipients, or that messages are actually sent and cannot be undone.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every part of the sentence contributes to stating what the tool does and its two sending modes.

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?

Although the schema is rich and an output schema exists, the absence of annotations places a heavier contextual burden on the description for a side-effecting send operation. The one-sentence description does not cover authentication needs, failure modes, rate limiting, or safety caveats, leaving important context missing for an agent calling a messaging tool.

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 parameters to_user, message, and delay are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or syntax beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 verb and resource: sending messages to multiple WeChat friends or group chats, and further specifies support for unified mass sending or separate sending. This distinguishes it from the single-recipient sibling wechat_send_message, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with other similar siblings like wechat_send_multiple_messages.

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 use case (multiple recipients, either unified or separate messages) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives. An agent must infer from the sibling list that this tool is for multi-recipient sends rather than single sends.

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