Mute a group member for a specified duration or unmute them by setting duration to zero. Use for managing group chat moderation via OneBot11.
禁言群成员（秒），0=解除禁言。会改变对方的状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 目标成员的 QQ 号 | |
| duration | No | 禁言时长（秒）；0 表示解除，不传默认 1800（30 分钟） | |
| group_id | Yes | 目标群号。用 get_group_list 取真实值，别凭记忆填 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation changes the target's state ('会改变对方的状态'), which is useful mutation context, but says nothing about permissions required, reversibility, rate limits, or whether the actor needs admin rights.
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?
Extremely short and front-loaded: it names the action, the unit, and the 0 special case in one compact sentence. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.
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-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics but omits permission requirements, consequences, and return behavior. It is minimally viable but 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%, with each parameter documented including the duration default and the 0=unmute semantics. The description reinforces the 0=unmute rule and the seconds unit, but adds little beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource: mute a group member, with duration in seconds and 0 meaning unmute. Sibling tools like set_group_whole_ban and set_group_kick exist, but the description does not explicitly distinguish this per-member mute from those, so it is clear without being sibling-differentiating.
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?
The description implies usage through the 0=unmute convention, which signals both muting and unmuting. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., set_group_whole_ban for all members), leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.