Marks a specific group message as a group to-do so all members receive a reminder and can act on it.
将群内的某条消息设置为“群待办”提醒全员 (NapCat 扩展接口: set_group_todo)。 :param group_id: 群号 :param message_id: 要设为群待办的消息 ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | 群号 | |
| message_id | Yes | 要设为群待办的消息 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the side effect of notifying all members, but says nothing about required permissions (likely group admin/owner), reversibility (is there an un-set), rate limits, or error conditions for this mutation.
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 is front-loaded and readable, but the trailing :param lines duplicate the schema descriptions exactly, adding no value. Slightly redundant rather than wasteful.
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 2-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits permission requirements, failure modes, and reversibility. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently in edge cases.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the :param lines merely repeat them verbatim. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 (set a group message as a 'group todo') and describes the effect ('提醒全员' / remind all members), plus notes it's a NapCat extension interface. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar siblings like set_essence_msg, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. With siblings such as set_essence_msg and set_group_* operations, the description gives no routing logic for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.