set_group_leave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the owner-only constraint for is_dismiss, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to the agent's membership or messages on leaving, or any permission/auth requirements for the leave path.

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 short and front-loads the purpose, but roughly half its content is a verbatim restatement of the input schema's parameter descriptions, which earns no additional value. The OneBot 11 action reference is the only extra signal.

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 destructive group-membership tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics and the owner-only caveat but omits consequences of the call and the effect of omitting is_dismiss beyond its default. 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 description coverage is 100% and the description's ':param' lines are verbatim duplicates of the schema text, adding no format, range, or edge-case meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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+resource pair, naming both modes (leave the group / dissolve the group) and citing the underlying OneBot 11 action. It is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like set_group_kick or set_group_ban, but it does not explicitly call out that contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the two modes, and one precondition is given for the dismiss mode ('仅当自己是群主时有效'). However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over set_group_kick or other group-membership tools, and no stated when-not conditions.

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