qq_send_private_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions support for ordered parts and replies but omits critical behavioral details like side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the user is offline. The transparency is minimal beyond basic functionality.

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 at two sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, though a slightly more structured layout could improve readability.

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 5 parameters (one required), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. The tool supports complex features like ordered parts and replies, but the description does not explain how to use the 'parts' array, image formats, or reply functionality in enough detail for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, but the description only references 'parts' and 'reply_to_message_id' indirectly. Required parameter 'user_id' and optional 'message', 'images', and nested 'parts' structure are not explained. The description adds little meaning beyond parameter names.

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 'send' and the resource 'QQ private message', and highlights specific features (ordered text/image parts, replying). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like qq_send_group_message and qq_send_private_file.

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 private messages with ordered parts or replies, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, such as qq_send_private_file for file-only messages. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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