set_group_whole_ban

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a boolean toggle; it says nothing about admin/permission requirements, reversibility, or whether existing per-member bans are affected. For a state-changing group-management action this is a significant gap.

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?

Brief and front-loaded with the purpose statement. Slightly wasteful in that the two :param lines duplicate descriptions already present in the schema, but overall it is compact.

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?

A simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description is largely adequate. However, it omits the operationally relevant permission context (bot must be group admin) for a group-wide mute action, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 both parameters (group_id, enable) are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely mirrors those same param definitions, adding no format, range, or side-effect detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: toggling the group-wide mute (全员禁言) via set_group_whole_ban, and the enable flag makes the direction explicit. It is clearly a group-level action distinguishable from the sibling set_group_ban (individual ban), though it never names that sibling or states 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 mention of the closely related set_group_ban alternative for muting an individual member. The agent must infer context entirely from the name.

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