set_member_card

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it 'Mutates the member's group card,' which aligns. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling, but the annotation coverage is sufficient to avoid major gaps.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, parameter explanation, privilege and mutation note. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential: what it does, parameters, and admin requirement. It lacks details on possible errors or validation (e.g., invalid card length), but for a straightforward mutation, it is almost 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'group_id: the QQ group number. user_id: the QQ number. card: the new nickname text.' It adds meaning beyond schema, but could be more explicit about formats (e.g., numeric strings).

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 'Set a member's group nickname (card)' with the verb 'set' and resource 'member's group nickname'. It also notes the empty string behavior, distinguishing it from any sibling tool that might alter member properties.

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 includes a crucial prerequisite: 'Requires bot to have admin privileges.' It implicitly guides when to use this tool (to change a nickname). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though no direct competitor exists among siblings.

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