telegram_block_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (adds to block list) but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences and an args list, front-loading the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words but the note example could be simplified. Every sentence serves a purpose, so it earns a solid score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation, blocking) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of the block (global or per-user), interaction with existing blocks, or what the output schema returns. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but behavioral context is missing.

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 effectively explains both parameters: code as a 6-digit example (001680) and note as a memo with an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though the note example is cryptic and could be clearer.

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 adds a stock to the ambiguous block list and specifies it blocks name-only matching when accompanied by a code. The verb 'adds' and the resource 'block list' are explicit, and the distinction from sibling tools like telegram_add_alias is implied by the focus on blocking via code.

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 implies usage context (blocking by code, name-only matching) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as telegram_add_alias or telegram_fp_candidates. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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