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 burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the toggle semantics. It does not state the admin/permission requirement, whether it affects current admins, what happens to existing bans, or the response shape — significant gaps for a mutating group-management call.

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 is stated first and in one clause, followed by the action identifier. The trailing :param lines duplicate the schema documentation, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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 mutating group tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum cover permissions and reversibility. It leaves the agent without the behavioral context needed to call this safely.

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 both group_id and enable are already fully documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats that text verbatim. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning 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?

Specific verb (开启/关闭) plus resource (群全员禁言) with the underlying OneBot action named, so the agent knows exactly what state is being toggled. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling set_group_ban (single-member mute), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the closely related set_group_ban / get_group_shut_list siblings. Usage is only inferable from the name and the enable flag.

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