解绑 QQ 机器人

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It labels the operation '高风险' and says 'unbind', which signals a destructive effect, but it does not disclose whether authentication is needed, whether the action is reversible, or what consequences unbinding has. This is minimal beyond the endpoint and risk label.

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 and well-structured: endpoint and risk are front-loaded, followed by parameter and response information. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

This is a parameterless tool with no output schema, so the description's response envelope and high-risk warning are adequate for making the call. It could be more complete by noting what 'data' contains or when unbinding is appropriate, but given the low complexity, the essentials are covered.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly states '请求参数: 无', matching the empty input schema. No further parameter explanation is needed, so the description is appropriately complete for this dimension.

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?

Description clearly states the action: unbinding a QQ bot, with the specific endpoint and HTTP method. The 'QQ' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like open_clawbot_unbind or open_qqbot_delete, so an agent can identify what this tool does immediately.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives such as open_qqbot_get_bind_link for binding or open_qqbot_delete for deleting a bot, so the agent must infer context 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.