qq_send_group_message

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

With no annotations, the description only discloses that it sends a message and supports ordered parts, but lacks details on mutation behavior, failure handling, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving significant 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words; the purpose is front-loaded and the feature support is concisely stated.

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?

Despite 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal; it does not explain return values, usage of individual params beyond parts, or prerequisites for sending group messages, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds some meaning to the 'parts' parameter (ordered types) but fails to explain other parameters like group_id, message, images, or reply_to_message_id, so it only partially compensates.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'QQ group message', and mentions support for mixed text, @mentions, and images, distinguishing it from sibling tools like qq_send_private_message.

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 implies usage for sending group messages but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives; usage guidance is implied but not thorough.

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