Stop Relay Typing

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the specific side effect: it stops the agent's typing indicator in a chat. It does not describe edge cases like calling when no indicator is active, but idempotence mitigates that concern.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and its scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete: annotations cover idempotence and safety, the schema defines chat_id format, and the description defines the action. A bit more parameter context would help, but it is not required for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'in a Chat,' which adds minimal meaning to chat_id; it does not explain how to obtain the chat_id or any behavior tied to it. The description does little beyond restating the parameter's obvious role.

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 ('Stop') with a precise object ('Agent typing indicator') and a scope ('in a Chat'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling relay_start_typing and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation's meaning and the antonymous sibling relay_start_typing, but the description does not explicitly state when to call this tool, when not to, or mention any alternative. There are no prerequisites or exclusions provided.

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