Cancel a pending login

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the security-relevant fact that no code or password is retained afterward, which an agent cannot infer from the structured fields. It stops short of saying what happens if no login is pending.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the state-cleanup note. Every clause earns its place.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the action and the post-condition. It is essentially complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as what occurs when no login is actually in progress.

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 the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to document on the input side.

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 ('abandon') and a specific resource ('an in-progress login'), which is clearly distinct from its flow siblings telegram_login_start, telegram_login_code, and telegram_login_password. An agent can tell this is the abort step of the login flow without opening the schema.

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?

Phrasing 'in-progress login' implies the tool applies only while a login is pending, but the description never states when to reach for this versus completing the flow or restarting. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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