Export or revoke an invite link

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the load and does it well: admin rights requirement, that revoking kills the old link, and that revoke=true issues a fresh link so the chat remains joinable. That is genuine consequence disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with the primary read behavior front-loaded, followed by the revoke consequence and the prerequisite. There is no filler; every clause carries operational 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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers the mutation consequence, the auth prerequisite, and what is returned on revoke. It omits any hint of the error/denied path or whether the returned link is the only payload, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema documents neither parameter. The description compensates fully for `revoke` (true = revoke old link and return the replacement) but says nothing extra about `chat` beyond the possessive 'a chat's', leaving that parameter's format to inference.

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 (get/revoke) and resource (invite link) plus the dual-mode behavior in one sentence. No sibling tool handles invite links, so it is trivially distinguishable from the rest of the telegram_* family.

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?

Explicitly names the condition that switches behavior (revoke=true) and the prerequisite (admin rights), which is the key when-to-use signal. It does not name a competing alternative, but no sibling overlaps enough to require one.

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