Set or cancel QQ group administrator status for a specified member by group ID and user ID. Requires group owner permission; enable true to assign or false to revoke.
设置或取消群管理员 (OneBot 11: set_group_admin)。需群主权限。 :param group_id: 群号 :param user_id: 目标成员 QQ 号 :param enable: True 设为管理员，False 取消管理员
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enable | No | True 设为管理员，False 取消管理员 | |
| user_id | Yes | 目标成员 QQ 号 | |
| group_id | Yes | 群号 |
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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the group-owner permission requirement, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about reversibility, what happens on permission failure, rate limits, or whether the bot itself must hold a role, leaving a mutation tool only partially characterized.
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 and permission requirement are front-loaded in a single tight sentence, and the whole thing is short. The trailing ':param' block is pure duplication of a fully-covered schema and adds no information, which costs it the top score.
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 simple three-parameter toggle with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and parameter meanings. It stops short of describing failure behavior or the result of the operation, which an agent calling a privileged mutation would benefit from knowing.
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's three ':param' lines are verbatim duplicates of the schema descriptions rather than additions. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema already documents every parameter.
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 gives a specific verb pair and resource ('设置或取消群管理员') and even names the underlying OneBot 11 action, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_group_special_title or set_group_kick, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
The only usage guidance is the prerequisite '需群主权限' (requires group owner permission), which is genuinely useful for deciding whether a call will succeed. There is no guidance on alternatives (e.g. set_group_special_title for titles) or on when to prefer this over other admin-related tools, so it remains implied usage rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.