set_online_status

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 usefully discloses the meaning of each status code (10=online, 40=invisible, etc.), which is genuine behavioral context, but it omits permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, scope of effect, and response shape.

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 in the first sentence, and the status-code list earns its place. The :param docstring lines largely repeat the schema descriptions, adding minor redundancy but not 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description documents all three parameters well but says nothing about behavior, effect scope, or what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps given the burden it must carry alone.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by enumerating the common status codes and their meanings — the schema has no enums and only states defaults. ext_status and battery_status remain opaque in both places.

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: '设置当前登录 QQ 的在线状态' (set the online status of the currently logged-in QQ). No sibling tool sets presence (set_qq_profile covers profile fields, set_self_longnick covers nickname), so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and purpose — there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative routing. The status-code list is parameter help, not context about when an agent should change presence.

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