telegram_disconnect

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the effect is server-side ('signs that session out on Telegram's side'), which is a non-obvious destructive side effect worth flagging. However, the sentence is truncated and never states what happens to local state, whether the operation is reversible, or whether re-authentication is required afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence names the action and scope before any detail, with no filler. The apparent truncation of the clause '...and removes' means the description is shorter than intended rather than padded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what and the remote effect but stops mid-clause. It never resolves what is removed locally, what happens to other connected accounts, or what state follows disconnection, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture of the end state.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description implicitly confirms no account identifier is passed, consistent with acting on a default/connected account.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Disconnects a Telegram account from LMCP on this Mac'), which cleanly distinguishes it from telegram_connect and the other telegram_* siblings. It does not clarify which account is targeted (default vs. selected), which is the only notable gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as telegram_list_accounts or set_default_telegram_account. The agent must infer that this is the teardown counterpart to telegram_connect.

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