新增 QQ 机器人群配置

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: qqCode is immutable after creation ('创建后不可修改'), quota limits (normal users max 5, members max 30), a uniqueness rule (同一QQ群不可重复创建), a precondition (the group must allow bot active messages), and the response envelope (code/msg/data). This is thorough disclosure 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?

A single dense paragraph organized into logical sections: endpoint/purpose, parameter constraints, business limits, and response format. Almost every clause earns its place; the minor redundancy is repeating qqName/qqCode character limits and charset that the schema already documents.

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?

Since no output schema exists, documenting the unified response (code with 200 success, msg, data) is essential and is included. For a 3-param create tool, the description covers parameters, constraints, quotas, and preconditions well; the only gap is specific error codes and what 'data' contains on success.

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 coverage is 100%, placing the baseline at 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: the immutability constraint on qqCode and the 'group must allow bot active messages' precondition on qqGroupId are behavioral facts absent from the property descriptions. Some duplication exists (character limits and charset rules repeat the schema), preventing a 5.

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 opens with the HTTP endpoint and a precise verb+resource: 'POST /open/qqBot/add - 新增 QQ 机器人群配置', clearly identifying a create operation for a QQ bot group delivery configuration. The scope note ('发到指定QQ群；发给自己无需配置') further distinguishes it from message-sending tools and other qqbot siblings like list/edit/delete.

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 a concrete usage condition: use this to deliver messages to a specified QQ group, and no configuration is needed when sending to oneself. It does not explicitly name the sibling management tools (open_qqbot_edit/list/delete) or state when those should be preferred, though the unambiguous 'add' verb plus the self-sending exclusion make the intended use clear.

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