Remove a specified file from a QQ group by providing the group ID and file ID, with optional busid defaulting to 102.
删除指定的 QQ 群文件 (NapCat OneBot 11: delete_group_file)。 :param group_id: 群号 :param file_id: 群文件 ID :param busid: 文件类型 busid，默认 102
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| busid | No | 文件类型 busid，默认 102 | |
| file_id | Yes | 群文件 ID | |
| group_id | Yes | 群号 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool deletes a file but does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
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 short and front-loads the purpose sentence. The parameter list duplicates schema content but does not pad the description with extraneous prose. Minor formatting oddity with the ':param' style, but overall efficient.
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 destructive deletion tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should at least mention irreversibility, permissions, or what happens on success/failure. It provides only purpose and parameter names already covered by the schema, leaving key behavioral context 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description duplicates those same descriptions ('群号', '群文件 ID', '文件类型 busid，默认 102') without adding any new meaning or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 in Chinese: '删除指定的 QQ 群文件' (delete the specified QQ group file). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_group_folder (folders) and delete_msg (messages). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify the boundary with delete_group_folder beyond the inherent noun difference.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only lists parameter descriptions, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.