Assign a custom emoji status to a Telegram user, with optional expiration, when the bot has the required permissions.
Set a custom emoji status for a user (requires bot to have appropriate rights).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User ID | |
| emoji_status_custom_emoji_id | No | ||
| emoji_status_expiration_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds the auth requirement, which is useful context, but it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing statuses or invalid emoji behavior. It's consistent with annotations but not deeply transparent.
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 sentence of 17 words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical adds the key prerequisite. No wasted words.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It leaves the meaning of the expiration date and emoji ID parameters completely unexplained. Annotations provide some safety cues, but the description itself does not give enough operational context to use the tool confidently.
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 only 33% (only user_id is described). The description does not mention any of the three parameters, leaving emoji_status_custom_emoji_id and emoji_status_expiration_date undefined. With such low coverage, the description needed to compensate but failed to do so.
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 'Set' and the target 'custom emoji status for a user', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like set_chat_title or set_sticker_emoji_list. The permission requirement adds clarity about the operation's scope.
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 a clear prerequisite ('requires bot to have appropriate rights') and the name/description make the intended use obvious. There are no direct sibling alternatives for this specific operation, so no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.