send_private_forward_msg

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by specifying the required node-object shape, but it says nothing about what the call returns, whether login/permission is required, or how failures are surfaced for what is clearly a mutating send operation.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the format example and parameter notes. The :param lines duplicate the schema descriptions and are mild redundancy, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 two-required-parameter send tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the hard part (node structure) but omits return values, error behavior, and the relationship to sibling send tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the :param lines merely repeat the schema text, which alone would be a baseline 3. However the schema declares messages as an untyped array (items: {}), and the description supplies the concrete node dict structure and an example, filling a genuine gap the schema leaves open.

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 ('向指定好友发送合并转发消息' – send a merged forward message to a specified friend) and cites the underlying NapCat OneBot 11 action. The word '好友' distinguishes it from the group counterpart, but it never names send_private_msg or send_group_forward_msg to sharpen the boundary.

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 conditions, and no reference to the closely related siblings (send_private_msg, send_group_forward_msg). The agent must infer that this is the private/forward variant purely from the tool name.

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