ban_chat_sender_chat

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

Discloses the behavioral outcome ('owner won't be able to send messages on behalf of their chat'), but does not cover permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description bears full burden but remains incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. Essential action and consequence are front-loaded, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

Adequate for a simple ban action with 2 parameters and no output schema, but lacks details on required permissions, effect on existing messages, or edge cases (e.g., if sender chat is already banned).

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. Description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Description specifies 'Ban a channel chat in a supergroup or channel' with concrete verb and resource, and explains the consequence, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like ban_chat_member (which bans users) and unban_chat_sender_chat (reverse action).

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?

Usage context is implied (for banning sender chats), but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like ban_chat_member, or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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