Store or update a friend's profile by QQ number — their name, relationship, speaking tone, and appended notes — so future replies match how you should talk to them.
给一个好友写下你的定义（名字/关系/该怎么跟他说话/备注）。传了哪项就更新哪项，notes 会追加。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uin | Yes | 好友 QQ 号 | |
| name | No | 你对他/她的称呼 | |
| note | No | 一条备注（追加） | |
| tone | No | 该怎么跟他说话（语气/分寸） | |
| relation | No | 他/她跟你是什么关系 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does disclose two meaningful behaviors: it is a partial update (only supplied fields change, others presumably preserved) and the note field is append-only rather than overwritten. It does not say what happens to unset fields explicitly, whether existing values can be cleared, or what the call returns.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose then the update semantics; no filler. Minor deduction for the plural 'notes' reference that does not match the schema's 'note' parameter name.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core contract (partial update, append semantics) but leaves open whether the friend must pre-exist, whether fields can be reset, and what the response contains. Adequate, not complete.
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 each of the five parameters already has a Chinese description in the schema; the description largely restates those field names. The one piece of added meaning is the append behavior of the note field, but it refers to it as 'notes' while the schema parameter is singular 'note', a small mismatch that could confuse mapping.
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 names a specific verb and resource: writing your own definition/profile for a friend, with the four field groups enumerated (name/relation/tone/note). It is distinguishable from siblings like friend_list (listing) and the qzone_* tools (posting/liking), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
It states the update semantics ('传了哪项就更新哪项') which implies this is the tool to call whenever you want to set or amend any part of a friend's profile. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the friend must already exist / be in the friend list), and no pointer to an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.