set_group_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set group member card' – it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing card), required permissions, what happens when 'card' is omitted, or any error behavior. This is severely insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which makes it concise, but it's under-specified. It lacks structure, such as separating core action from optional details or edge cases. The brevity is not an asset here because it omits essential context.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention that 'card' is optional, what happens if omitted, or the effect on the member's display. An agent would have to infer or experiment to understand the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a basic description ('Group card', 'User QQ number', 'Group ID'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear action ('Set') and a specific resource ('group member card'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_group_name or set_group_special_title. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'group card' is (likely a member's display nickname), so it's not fully explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. With many sibling tools available, the agent gets no routing help.

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