Deletes a specified QQ group folder using its group ID and folder ID, helping remove unwanted or obsolete group files.
删除指定的 QQ 群文件夹 (NapCat OneBot 11: delete_group_folder)。 :param group_id: 群号 :param folder_id: 群文件夹 ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | 群号 | |
| folder_id | Yes | 群文件夹 ID |
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 burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but nothing states what gets destroyed (the folder's contents/files?), whether the operation is irreversible, what permissions are required, or what happens on a nonexistent folder. The only extra signal is the NapCat OneBot 11 API reference, which is metadata rather than behavioral context.
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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clean sentence, but the trailing Sphinx-style ':param' lines duplicate what the input schema already provides and add noise without value.
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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry the safety and consequence burden. It fails to say what is removed, whether it is recoverable, or any error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible action.
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 both parameters. The description merely repeats the same text ('群号', '群文件夹 ID') with no added format, range, or sourcing detail, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('删除指定的 QQ 群文件夹' = delete the specified QQ group folder), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling delete_group_file (a file vs a folder). However it does not name any sibling explicitly or explain the folder/file distinction, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_group_file or the folder-listing tools. The agent gets the action but nothing about the conditions that should select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.