set_self_longnick

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a mutation that visibly changes the logged-in account's signature, yet the description says nothing about reversibility, login requirements, failure behavior, or rate limits — the only behavioral hint is the '当前登录 QQ' targeting.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The trailing ':param long_nick' is docstring residue rather than prose, but it costs little and introduces no ambiguity.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to adequate — action, target scope, and parameter are all identifiable. But a mutation tool with zero annotations should at minimum state the login prerequisite and what a successful call does to the profile.

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 the description merely restates the same meaning ('个性签名内容' for long_nick), adding no format, length, or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already documents the parameter.

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 (设置/set) and resource (当前登录 QQ 的个性签名), and the parenthetical identifies it as a NapCat extension action. The scope '当前登录 QQ' helps distinguish it from per-group tools like set_group_card, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with set_qq_profile.

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 (e.g., must be logged in), and no routing to or away from the closely related set_qq_profile / set_friend_remark siblings. The agent must infer all of this.

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