telegram_set_tier

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: overwrites auto seeds, subsequent re-seeds preserve manual setting, explains tier's role in buzz weighting. No contradictions. Could mention if destructive or permission implications.

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 concise paragraphs: first states action and effect, second explains tier's purpose and parameter details. Front-loaded with main action, 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?

Has output schema (not shown), so return values need not be explained. Covers parameters, behavior, and effect. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., channel must exist) but tool is fairly self-contained.

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 0%, but description provides detailed semantics for all four parameters, including defaults for weight and note, and acceptable values for tier. Adds meaning well beyond the bare 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?

Description clearly states verb (manual setting) and resource (channel tier), and explains its use in buzz aggregation weighting. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only tier-setter, though lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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?

Description implies use for manual override of auto seeds, but provides no when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Sibling tools include classification and other channel operations, but no guidance on choosing this over them.

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