telegram_unwatch_chats

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It says it stops notices set up 'for this session', hinting that watches are session-scoped, but the truncated ending leaves unclear whether it clears one account's watches or all of them, and whether anything is permanently removed.

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?

Single sentence, but it is visibly truncated ('for ever...'), ending on an unfinished clause. Foregrounding the verb is good; shipping a cut-off description is not, and the ellipsis conveys no usable meaning.

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?

This is a zero-param, no-output-schema tool with a simple purpose, so the bar is low and the core idea (undo the watches) comes through. The truncated scope clause still leaves a real ambiguity about whether stopping applies per account or globally.

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 zero parameters, which would normally be a baseline 4. But the description names an '`account`' selector and an 'or for ever...' alternative that do not exist in the schema, which is confusing rather than helpful — an agent may look for parameters that aren't there.

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 ('Stops') and resource ('the Telegram message notices telegram_watch_chats set up for this session'), and ties itself to the sibling that creates those watches. However the sentence is cut off mid-clause, so the full scope statement ('for `account`, or for ever...') is never completed.

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?

Implies its trigger by naming telegram_watch_chats as the counterpart, so an agent can infer 'use this to undo a watch'. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and the dangling 'or for ever...' suggests a scope choice that is never explained.

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