Hide / show history for new members

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

Annotations provide idempotent and open-world hints, and the description adds the behavioral effect of enabling/disabling history visibility and the supergroup limitation. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but the annotations already cover safety aspects, and the added context is useful.

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 concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the critical constraint ('Supergroups only'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 simple toggle tool, the description covers the core behavior and main constraint, but the lack of parameter documentation for peer and accountId, combined with no output schema, leaves some ambiguity. It is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

The schema has three parameters with zero description coverage. The description explains 'enabled' semantics ('when enabled, new members cannot see history') and implies 'peer' must be a supergroup, but it does not clarify the format of 'peer' or the role of 'accountId'. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as toggling pre-history visibility for new members in supergroups. It uses specific language ('When enabled, new members cannot see history before they joined') that distinguishes it from other group settings like toggle_signatures or toggle_join_request.

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 states the supergroups-only constraint, which implies when it is applicable, but it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or mention when not to use it. The context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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