set_online_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the target (currently logged-in QQ) but omits whether login is required, whether the change is reversible, and what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the status code list earns its place as genuine domain knowledge. The trailing :param lines partially duplicate the schema, but overall the text is compact and well-organized.

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 3-param, no-required, no-output-schema setter, the core action and status vocabulary are covered. However, there is no annotation support and no explanation of ext_status/battery_status semantics or the return behavior, leaving the definition merely adequate.

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% (baseline 3), but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the actual status-code vocabulary (10, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70), which the schema does not list. That added enum-like meaning justifies raising above baseline, though ext_status and battery_status remain unexplained beyond their defaults.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: setting the online status of the currently logged-in QQ account, and explicitly labels it as a NapCat extension interface. It is clearly distinguishable from the getter sibling (get_napcat_status), though it does not name any 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as switch_qq_account or get_napcat_status. No prerequisites or conditions are stated; the reader is left to infer that this must follow a successful login.

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