Update or clear a member's group card (nickname) in a specified group. Pass an empty string to remove the custom card and restore their default display.
改成员的群名片，传空串可清除。会改变对方在该群的展示。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | No | 新名片；传空字符串等于清掉自定义名片 | |
| user_id | Yes | 目标成员的 QQ 号 | |
| 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the empty-string clear behavior and that the member's display changes, but says nothing about required permissions/rank, whether a bot may modify other members' cards, or reversibility of the change.
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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the clear-behavior detail follows immediately.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It covers the mutation and its clearing behavior but omits permission/authorization context that matters for a tool modifying another member's visible identity.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the empty-string semantics for card and the guidance to source group_id from get_group_list. The description's 'empty string clears' line merely duplicates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (change a member's group card) plus the effect (changes their display in that group), which separates it from set_group_name and set_group_special_title. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_group_admin or set_group_special_title, nor whether it applies only to the caller's own card or any member. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.