Send Telegram Notification

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating that the notification is purely informational and requires no approval, which is an important behavioral caveat in a toolset full of approval-requiring trade actions. No contradiction with 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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key approval caveat are front-loaded, and every phrase adds meaning.

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 notification tool, the description plus annotations and output schema cover most invocation needs. The main gap is parameter semantics, especially the level field, but an agent can still safely call the tool with the required title and body.

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%, and the description does not explain title, body, or level. The parameter names are somewhat intuitive, but the description provides no compensation for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for the level field and its valid values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send'), identifies the recipient ('operator'), the channel ('Telegram'), and the content type ('informational'). It is clearly distinguishable from the trading and approval sibling tools, none of which send operator notifications.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: for purely informational operator notifications. It also explicitly excludes approval requirements ('No approval required'), which is relevant given the many approval-oriented sibling tools. It does not name alternatives, but no notification-related sibling exists.

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