send_group_msg

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and gives no information about return values, message ID, auto_escape behavior, side effects beyond sending, or requirements such as group membership or permissions.

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 three words with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is maximally concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than being a fully helpful definition.

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?

The description plus complete schema coverage is enough to make a basic call with the required group_id and message. However, with no annotations and no output schema, important context is missing: return value, side-effect profile, auto_escape semantics, and how this differs from send_group_forward_msg.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The parameters group_id and message are already documented clearly in the schema, and the description does not introduce any additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and a clear resource ('group message'), so the primary action is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like send_group_forward_msg or the generic send_msg, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this tool over send_private_msg, send_msg, or send_group_forward_msg, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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