set_passport_data_errors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds domain context ('Telegram Passport elements contain errors') but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits such as how the user is informed or what happens on repeated calls.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and key information, making it easy to parse. It could benefit from a bit more detail, but it is appropriately concise for the simple purpose it states.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, which reduces complexity. However, the description is too thin to fully understand the 'errors' parameter structure and the exact context in which the tool should be invoked. Annotations help with safety but not semantic completeness, leaving room for improvement.

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 description coverage is 50%: only user_id has a description. The 'errors' parameter lacks any schema description, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining the structure or meaning of 'errors'. This leaves a significant semantic gap for the agent.

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 tool's function: 'Inform a user that some Telegram Passport elements contain errors.' The verb 'Inform' and resource 'user' specify the action and target, and the domain (Telegram Passport errors) distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which perform this task.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage direction.

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