Open the mcp-telegram settings page

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

Description goes far beyond the openWorldHint annotation, disclosing critical behavioral details: it resolves when the tab is closed, changes persist to ~/.telegram-agent/state.json, the MCP client must be restarted to apply changes, and env vars override stored values and appear locked in the UI. No contradiction with annotations; excellent transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then each subsequent sentence adds essential detail (lifecycle, persistence, override behavior). No extraneous information—every sentence earns its place. Ideal length for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when it completes, where changes are stored, restart requirement, and env var interactions. This is complete guidance for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings but adds context about configuration behavior (env var overrides) that helps the agent understand the tool's functioning.

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 a specific action: 'Open a local browser tab where the user can toggle read-only mode and edit the tool allowlist / blocklist.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on Telegram chat operations. The verb+resource+parameters are explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when the user needs to modify read-only settings or allowlists/blocklists. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling tool overlaps in functionality, the context is sufficient. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' prevents a 5.

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