create_chat_id_discovery

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, the description carries real extra weight: it enumerates the return payload, states an account/API-key prerequisite and that start_login does not open this tool, and warns that users never see folded tool results. That is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, and nothing contradicts them.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then workflow instructions, then a prerequisite note. It is on the long side (~200 words) and the closing paragraph about clients folding tool results is somewhat tangential, but nearly every sentence carries actionable direction.

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 multi-step create-to-verify flow with no output schema, the description covers the return fields, the next tool to call, the polling loop, the terminal-vs-link distinction, and the account prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to drive the full HITL setup correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the token it produces and the downstream calls instead of inventing parameter detail.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a Telegram chat ID discovery token,' then names the exact return fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings poll_chat_id_discovery and wait_for_chat_id_discovery, which handle later steps of the same flow.

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?

Gives explicit when-and-how guidance: pass `deep_link` to render_auth_link, never hand `qr_text` to a link renderer, print it in a fenced block only for terminals, then poll poll_chat_id_discovery with the token, and finally use the chat_id when creating a HITL config. Alternatives and sequencing are spelled out, not implied.

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