Create a group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/network profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the creating account becomes admin, what permissions are required, or what happens if a user in the list is invalid.

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 with no filler; the verb, resource, and inputs all appear immediately.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, but thin for a write operation that creates persistent server-side state. Missing failure modes, permission requirements, and the effect on the caller's admin role.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters — and it does, clarifying that 'users' accepts @username or numeric id and that a title is required. It does not state limits on user count or whether users must be contacts, but it closes the main gap.

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 (create) and resource (group chat), and mentions the two inputs. It implicitly distinguishes itself from telegram_create_channel by saying 'group chat', but never names the channel sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to create a group versus creating a channel (telegram_create_channel) or joining one (telegram_join_chat), and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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