anon_post_qq_bind_code

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description justifies that: regenerating invalidates the prior code, binding to a new project auto-unbinds the old one, and rebinding the same group resets its type config to all-selected. The 10-minute one-time-code expiry and permission requirement are disclosed beyond what structured fields 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?

Purpose and constraints are front-loaded, but the actionable core is padded by the trailing enumeration of notification types (milestones, todos, announcements, risks, onsite, weekly) that a caller does not need in order to invoke the tool. Well-organized but longer than necessary for the decision at hand.

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 parameterless, side-effecting workflow tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, code lifetime, uniqueness semantics, the human-side binding step, rebinding side effects, and what the binding enables. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantics by clarifying that the project is inferred from the current API key and no projectId needs to be passed despite the {id} path segment, but there is otherwise nothing parameter-level to document.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — generate a project QQ group bind code — and names the endpoint (POST /api/projects/{id}/qq-bind-code). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling qq_binding tools (patch/delete group bindings, which manage existing bindings rather than minting a code).

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?

Gives an explicit operational flow: generate the code, then pull the bot into the group and @ it with '绑定 XXXXXX'. It also states the permission prerequisite (project:manage) and the sequencing rule for binding multiple groups, which is exactly the when/how guidance an agent needs.

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