Assign, update, or remove a QQ group member's special title with an optional expiry; requires group owner permissions.
设置群成员专属头衔 (OneBot 11: set_group_special_title)。需群主权限。 :param group_id: 群号 :param user_id: 目标成员 QQ 号 :param special_title: 专属头衔名称 (空字符串表示取消头衔) :param duration: 有效期秒数，默认 -1 表示永久
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 目标成员 QQ 号 | |
| duration | No | 有效期秒数，默认 -1 表示永久 | |
| group_id | Yes | 群号 | |
| special_title | No | 专属头衔名称 (空字符串表示取消头衔) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the group-owner permission requirement plus the empty-string-cancels semantics and the -1=permanent default. It omits failure behavior, whether existing titles are overwritten, and any rate limits, 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?
The purpose line is front-loaded and efficient, but the four :param lines duplicate schema text word-for-word, which is pure redundancy rather than conciseness. The useful permission and cancel-semantics notes are buried in the schema echo rather than stated up front.
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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: permission requirement, required vs optional params, and the meaning of cancel/permanent values. Return values are not described but the tool's contract is otherwise adequately specified.
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 coverage is 100% and the description's :param lines are verbatim repetitions of the schema descriptions, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('设置群成员专属头衔') and cites the OneBot 11 action name, so the agent knows it targets a group member's honorific rather than a card, admin flag, or group name. The unique resource makes it distinguishable from siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
States a prerequisite ('需群主权限'), which implies who may call it and under what condition. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this over adjacent tools like set_group_admin or set_group_card, or what to do if permission is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.