send_group_notice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does, with no mention of behavior like whether it requires admin permissions, whether it is irreversible, or what happens on failure. Lacks behavioral context.

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 very short and efficient, with two clear parameter lines. No redundant text. However, it could be better structured with a brief explanation of usage context.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error states, or prerequisites (e.g., being a group admin). For a simple write tool, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds Chinese labels '群号' (group number) and '公告内容' (notice content) beyond the schema property titles ('Group Id', 'Content'), providing some additional context. However, it does not explain format or constraints.

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 clearly states the action '发送群公告' (send group notice) and specifies the resource (group). It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'set_member_card'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'send_group_notice' instead of 'send_message' or 'recall_message'. There are no prerequisites or when-not-to-use clues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.