telegram_add_alias

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

The description adds one behavioral fact ('즉시 반영됩니다' - takes effect immediately) and confirms mutation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose what happens on duplicate aliases, whether an existing alias is overwritten, or any other side effects, so it provides only minimal value beyond 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 main statement is one efficient line, the immediate-effect note is a single short sentence, and the two parameters are listed in a clean format. No redundant words or restatements of the schema.

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 simple two-parameter registration tool, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning with examples, and an important behavioral note. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. The only missing piece is usage guidance relative to the many sibling tools, which is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining alias as a Telegram term/abbreviation and code as a 6-digit stock code, and by providing realistic examples (현대차, 005380). This is exactly the format and meaning information missing from the schema.

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 specifies the verb '등록합니다' (register) and the resource (a dictionary mapping common terms/abbreviations to 6-digit codes), with concrete examples. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from related siblings such as telegram_alias_candidates or telegram_block_name, so it stops short of a top score.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. The intent is implied by the name and purpose, but the description leaves the choice between adding, blocking, or suggesting aliases entirely to the agent.

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