Saves an image that another person sent in a QQ chat to your QQ favorite stickers, with an optional short remark.
把会话里别人发的一张表情收藏到 QQ 收藏表情，并可写一句简短备注（如“好图偷了，兄弟”）。messageId 用收到的消息 id；只能收藏别人发的图，不能收藏自己发的。图片由插件自己安全下载后再交给网关，不会让网关抓任意 URL。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remark | No | 可选：收藏表情的简短备注（超过配置里的 sticker.collect.maxRemarkChars 会被截断，实际写入值见返回值） | |
| target | Yes | 会话标识 group:123456 / private:7890 | |
| messageId | Yes | 要收藏的那条消息的 id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the restriction to others' images, that the plugin downloads images safely instead of the gateway fetching arbitrary URLs, and that remarks may be truncated. It omits failure modes (e.g., message has no image), permission requirements, and what happens on duplicates.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by messageId guidance, the 'others only' restriction, and the security note. Every sentence contributes relevant information with no waste.
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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, restrictions, security behavior, and remark truncation. It could be more complete by explaining the return value shape and error cases (e.g., no image in the referenced message).
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful nuance: messageId must come from a received message, and the remark example shows the intended brevity and tone. These additions are useful, though modest beyond the already detailed schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: collecting someone else's sticker from a chat into QQ favorites. Scope is explicit (only others' images, not your own). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'sticker_note', which also involves annotating stickers, so it falls 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?
It gives clear usage conditions: collect a sticker another person sent, and explicitly excludes collecting your own. It does not mention alternatives like sticker_note or sticker_send, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this versus annotating an existing sticker.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.