Submit the Telegram login code

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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real behavioral detail: the return flag needsPassword:true signals a 2FA branch, the required follow-up call, and a security constraint ('Never echo the code or password back'). This goes well beyond the structured data.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded: purpose, prerequisite, conditional branch, and security rule. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given a single required parameter, no output schema, and generic annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the prerequisite call, the conditional 2FA handoff, and the secrecy requirement. Nothing material 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 100% and the code param is fully documented ('digits only'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that it is the code Telegram sent, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Finish login by submitting the code Telegram sent the user') and clearly distinguishes itself from the login siblings (start, password, cancel). An agent can identify this as the code-submission step without inspecting any 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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite ('Call telegram_login_start first') and the conditional branch: if 2FA is active, ask the user for the password and call telegram_login_password. This routes the agent to the correct alternative under a stated condition.

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