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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two real facts: the connected-bot prerequisite and that the operation is free. It does not say what happens if the bot is disconnected (error vs no-op) or how the toggle interacts with existing voice settings, leaving the mutation semantics partly opaque.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by prerequisite and cost. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 low-complexity two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and pricing. It stops short of the details that would make it fully self-sufficient — failure behavior when no bot is connected and the relationship to the sibling settings tool.

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 50%: 'id' is documented in the schema as an agent UUID from list_agents, while 'enabled' is bare. The description's "show or hide" implicitly maps to enabled=true/false, which recovers the semantic of the undocumented parameter, but adds no format or default detail beyond that.

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?

States a concrete verb pair (show/hide) and a concrete resource (the VOICE button of the agent's Telegram bot), with a parenthetical clarifying it governs voice calls in the mini app. An agent can distinguish it from reconfigure_telegram_bot, though not explicitly from the near-twin set_telegram_voice_settings.

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?

"Needs a connected bot" gives one prerequisite that gates usage, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over set_telegram_voice_settings or reconfigure_telegram_bot, so the agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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