set_group_admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only says 'Set group admin' without stating whether this operation is reversible via the 'enable' parameter, whether it requires elevated permissions, or what side effects occur (e.g., notifying users). Given it is a mutation tool, the lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single, short sentence with no fluff. It is concise and to the point. It could be improved by adding a mention of the 'enable' parameter, but for a simple tool, this is appropriately minimal.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, toggling behavior) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. The schema covers parameter semantics well, but behavioral aspects like reversibility and permissions are absent. The description is adequate but would benefit from clarifying the toggling behavior.

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 covers 100% of parameters, each with clear descriptions (e.g., 'group_id: Group ID', 'user_id: User QQ number', 'enable: Whether to set as admin'). The description does not need to add much, as the schema is sufficient. However, the description could mention that 'enable' toggles admin status, which it does not, but the schema already carries that meaning, so a high score is warranted.

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 'Set group admin' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, and implies toggling the admin status of a user in a group. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_group_kick or set_group_ban by naming the action (setting admin) rather than kicking or banning. However, it lacks explicit mention of the 'enable' parameter, which could add clarity that it both grants and revokes admin status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not list any conditions, prerequisites (e.g., must be group owner), or situations where this tool should be preferred over similar group management tools. The agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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