add_participants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without any details on side effects, permissions needed (e.g., bot must be admin), or error cases (e.g., user already in chat). This is severely lacking.

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 concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices useful information. It is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks structure and additional details that would help the agent.

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 simple parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the operation likely succeeds silently or returns confirmation, nor does it address potential errors or constraints like user membership status.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'chat' and 'users' are not elaborated, leaving their meaning ambiguous. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the action (adding people) and the resource (group/channel). It distinguishes from siblings like kick_participant, but lacks specificity about scope (e.g., any number of users) and does not clarify if it applies to both groups and channels equally.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., admin rights) or context for appropriate usage, leaving the agent to infer from name alone.

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