transferBusinessAccountStars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the required permission ('Requires the can_transfer_stars business bot right'), the consequence ('can then be withdrawn by the bot'), and the success return ('Returns True on success'). It does not address failure modes, reversibility, or edge-case behavior, but covers the key operational traits.

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 short sentences, each adding distinct value: the action, the post-transfer consequence, and the required permission. There is no redundant wording and the primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, permission, and success return. It does not explain error conditions or provide comparison to related balance tools, but the essential information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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%: star_count is described as '1-10000' and business_connection_id as 'unique identifier of the business connection'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Transfers Telegram Stars from a managed business account to the bot's balance.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like transferGift or getBusinessAccountStarBalance, since the action, source, and destination are 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?

The use case is implied by the description: transfer Stars out of a business account to make them withdrawable. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement, and no alternatives are named or compared, so usage guidance is left to inference.

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