send_group_forward_msg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies a write/mutation via '发送'. It discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, failure behavior, or whether the forward is persisted, leaving the safety and side-effect profile unspecified.

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, followed by the node format example, then param docs. The param lines largely restate the schema, but the format example earns its place and the whole entry is compact.

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 send tool with no output schema and no annotations, the key complexity—the node array format—is covered, along with the target group. Missing details about the return value and error handling are minor given the format example is the main callability hurdle.

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 coverage is 100% and both params are documented, but the schema's messages.items is an empty type {}, so the description's concrete node example ({type, data:{name, uin, content}}) supplies the array element structure the schema omits. That is genuine added value beyond the baseline.

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 a merged/combined forward message to a specified group chat, tied to the NapCat OneBot 11 action. '群聊' and '合并转发' implicitly separate it from send_group_msg and send_private_forward_msg, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer that this differs from send_group_msg or send_private_forward_msg purely from the tool name, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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