banChatSenderChat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the consequence ('owner of the banned chat won't be able to send messages on behalf of any of their channels'), the prerequisite ('bot must be an administrator'), and the return value ('Returns True on success'). It also implies reversibility via 'until the chat is unbanned.'

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?

Three concise, information-dense sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the key consequence and prerequisite, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description covers the action, effect, prerequisites, and return value. There is no output schema, so the explicit 'Returns True on success' is valuable. Minor gaps such as how to obtain the sender_chat_id or error behavior are not included, but the core calling context is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 and resource: 'Ban a channel chat in a supergroup or channel.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from banChatMember and aligns with the sibling unbanChatSenderChat. The scope ('channel chat' as opposed to a user) is explicit.

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?

Provides clear context: it bans a channel chat and requires the bot to be an administrator with appropriate rights. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as unbanChatSenderChat or banChatMember, but the behavior described makes the intended use case evident without ambiguity.

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