bort_chat_attach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the two operating modes; it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, what happens if chat_id is invalid or already attached, or whether attaching a new chat creates side effects in Telegram.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the parameter list demoted to a parenthetical. Nothing is padded, though the terseness contributes to the parameter coverage gap.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is thin. It omits how the project is identified (project_id vs project_name), what note does, and the required/optional nature of every field — all of which the agent must guess.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names five of them (chat_id, title, kind, tg_chat_id, tg_link) and groups them by mode, but leaves note, project_id, and project_name completely undocumented — and the project-identification params are arguably the most important for correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('привязать чат к проекту' / attach a chat to a project) and clarifies the dual mode: attach an existing chat_id or create a new chat inline. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling bort_chat_detach, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical ('существующий chat_id или создать новый') implicitly tells the agent which parameter path to take depending on whether the chat already exists, which is useful branching guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no preconditions (e.g. whether the project must already exist, or how project_id/project_name select the target).

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