Set or update a QQ friend's remark name by providing their user ID and the new remark.
设置或修改指定好友的备注名 (NapCat 扩展接口: set_friend_remark)。 :param user_id: 好友 QQ 号 :param remark: 新备注名称
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remark | Yes | 新备注名称 | |
| user_id | Yes | 好友 QQ 号 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Does 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 only says the remark is set or modified and does not disclose permissions, whether an existing remark is overwritten, error behavior, or reversibility. 'NapCat 扩展接口' adds provenance, not 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 description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter lines. The two ':param' lines duplicate the schema descriptions and do not earn their place, but the overall text is not bloated.
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-parameter setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description states the essential action. It omits relevant mutation details such as whether the target friend must already exist or whether an existing remark is overwritten, which matters given there are no annotations.
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 repeats the same explanations for user_id and remark verbatim and adds no format, constraint, or usage meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 (设置或修改) and resource (指定好友的备注名), and the word 好友 distinguishes it from group-scoped siblings such as set_group_card or self-scoped siblings such as set_qq_profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The purpose implies it is used for friend remarks, but the description gives no condition that selects it over related setters like set_group_card or set_qq_profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.