Invoke MTProto

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: dangerous methods are blocked without allow_dangerous=true, and successful responses are either an API result dict or a normalized error. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the guardrail and return behavior. The link to full documentation also supports transparency, though no rate limits or auth details are provided.

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 three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add critical safety and result information. Every sentence earns its place, and the documentation link is a compact useful addition. No redundancy or fluff.

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 complex low-level tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the dangerous-method guard, and the return type. The full schema and output schema handle parameter specifics, and the documentation link fills any remaining gaps. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are shared across the MCP context and not uniquely critical here.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related context beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing allow_dangerous and normalization. It does not explain parameter semantics in the description itself, but the schema is self-sufficient.

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 tool is a 'low-level Telegram API (MTProto) invoke' for 'methods not wrapped by other tools,' which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from the high-level sibling tools. It also indicates the success output format, adding further specificity.

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 gives a clear usage rule: use this tool for methods not wrapped by other tools, implying that for wrapped methods one should use the appropriate sibling. It also warns that dangerous methods require allow_dangerous=true, setting expectations for when additional care is needed. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tool names.

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