delete_chat_sticker_set

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' is consistent. However, the description does not disclose a critical behavioral nuance: this tool only removes the chat's association with the sticker set, not the sticker set itself (unlike the sibling 'delete_sticker_set'). This omission could mislead an agent into thinking the actual sticker set is deleted. The description adds only the scope 'from a supergroup' beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Delete the sticker set from a supergroup.' It contains no filler and conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and annotations providing destructive hint, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks crucial context about side effects (the sticker set itself remains) and prerequisites (admin rights), which is important for a destructive operation. The presence of a similarly named sibling raises the need for clarification, which is missing.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'chat_id' parameter, documenting it as 'Chat ID or @username'. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already handles it fully. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: 'Delete the sticker set from a supergroup.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'sticker set' are explicit, and the scope 'from a supergroup' distinguishes it from the sibling 'delete_sticker_set' which deletes a sticker set entirely. This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination.

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 implies usage for supergroups but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'delete_sticker_set' is for removing a sticker set globally or that 'set_chat_sticker_set' is the counterpart for setting it. The context is clear enough for a supergroup deletion, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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