Set or update a friend's remark name on QQ by providing the friend's user ID and the new remark text.
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.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a mutation ('设置或修改') but doesn't disclose permissions required, reversibility, rate limits, or whether the remark can be cleared.
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 core sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the inclusion of ':param' lines duplicates schema content and the '(NapCat 扩展接口)' parenthetical adds little for an agent.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, permission needs, and error behavior. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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% and the description repeats the same param docs ('好友 QQ 号', '新备注名称') without adding format, constraints, or edge cases. Baseline 3 applies.
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: '设置或修改指定好友的备注名' (set or modify a friend's remark name), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like set_group_card or set_qq_profile.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as set_group_card or set_self_longnick. It implicitly handles friend remarks only, but exclusions and context are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.