Start Relay Typing

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent action. The description adds the useful 'refresh' behavior, but it does not disclose how long the indicator lasts, whether it expires, or whether the agent must later call relay_stop_typing; this is acceptable for a simple action but not thorough.

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 sentence with no filler; every word contributes the action, the refresh nuance, and the target context. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose safety profile is already in annotations, the description is essentially complete. The only missing nuance is lifecycle guidance about stopping or expiry, which is not critical to making a correct call.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for parameter documentation, but it never mentions chat_id. The parameter name and UUID schema are self-explanatory and the description's 'in a Chat' reinforces that chat_id identifies the target, so the gap is minor.

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 states a specific action ('Start or refresh') and a concrete resource ('Agent typing indicator in a Chat'), so an agent understands the tool's function. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling relay_stop_typing, though the verb choice makes the contrast reasonably clear.

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 tool implies its use case: call it when the agent is composing or continuing to type in a chat. It gives no explicit conditions, exclusions, or pointer to relay_stop_typing for ending the indicator, so usage guidance is only implied.

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