setPassportDataErrors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior, the blocking side effect on re-submission, and the success return value ('Returns True on success'). It does not detail failure behavior, but the disclosed traits are substantially informative.

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 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and adds only the essential behavioral consequence and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with a very detailed schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral consequence, and return value. It could mention failure behavior or when to trigger it relative to the user's Passport submission flow, but the core context is 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 fully documents both 'user_id' and the detailed nested 'errors' structure. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Informs'), the resource ('Telegram Passport elements'), and the specific purpose (reporting errors). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which handle Passport error reporting.

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 implies the usage context: when a user has provided Passport elements that contain errors, and notes the consequence that the user cannot re-submit until fixed. It does not name explicit alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for this task.

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