Replace a managed Telegram bot's token by user ID to refresh credentials or resolve token-related access issues.
Replace the token of a managed bot (v9.6).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the version note '(v9.6)' and does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as token invalidation or permission requirements, but it does not contradict 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 with no redundant words. It communicates the essential action and resource 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and clear annotations, but the description omits potentially useful context such as the meaning of 'user_id' in this context and the effect of replacement on the existing token. It is minimally complete but could be improved.
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 schema description covers the only parameter 'user_id' with a basic 'User ID' description, providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra meaning or clarify whether this ID refers to the bot or its owner, but the schema is sufficient.
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 verb and resource: 'Replace the token of a managed bot'. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_managed_bot_token', which retrieves rather than modifies the token.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_managed_bot_token'. The description does not mention prerequisites, effects, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.