set_group_special_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two important traits: the operation requires group-owner permission and an empty special_title cancels the title. Beyond that it says nothing about failure behavior, length limits on titles, or whether duration interacts with cancellation, so the disclosure is partial.

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 the permission prerequisite are front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameter notes following in a compact list. It is efficient, though the per-parameter lines duplicate the schema rather than adding information.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers the core facts (permission requirement, cancel-via-empty-string, duration default). It still omits title constraints and error/return behavior, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description merely restates those same strings (群号, 目标成员 QQ 号, etc.). Baseline 3 is appropriate — the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.

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: 设置群成员专属头衔 (set a group member's exclusive title), and ties it to the OneBot 11 action name. This is distinguishable from neighboring tools like set_group_card (群名片) by the '专属头衔' wording, though it does not explicitly call out the difference.

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 description gives one prerequisite — '需群主权限' (requires group owner permission) — which is genuine usage context. However, it offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no comparison to the closely related set_group_card sibling, leaving routing to inference.

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