Set or clear a group member's exclusive title in OneBot11 groups. Provide group_id, user_id, and special_title; pass an empty string to remove the title.
设置成员专属头衔，空串清除。会改变对方在群里的称谓。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| special_title | No | 新头衔；传空字符串等于清除 |
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 burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: an empty string clears the title, and the change affects how the member is addressed in the group. However, it omits permission requirements, whether the change is visible/notified to the member, and error conditions for a mutation tool.
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 short sentences with no filler, leading with the action and the clearing rule. Nothing is buried or wasted.
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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the clear-case but says nothing about permissions, side effects on other members, or failure modes. Adequate, but there are visible gaps.
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-clears rule and the 18-char limit. The description's '空串清除' merely repeats the schema, adding no new parameter semantics; 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 (设置) plus resource (成员专属头衔) and the clear semantic (空串清除). It is identifiable, but it does not name or contrast with the nearby sibling set_group_card, which also changes how a member appears in a group, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative set_group_card, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether the caller must be owner/admin or whether the target must already be in the group). 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.