tg_chat_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds important behavioral details: slowmode is in seconds and only for supergroups, forum mode turns a supergroup into a forum, photo must be a local image file, and permissions keys are listed. It does not mention reversibility or potential errors, but it provides substantial context beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description is well-structured with a concise purpose sentence followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the permissions key list is useful despite its length. There is no redundant information.

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?

The description covers all parameters and key constraints, but it does not explicitly state that only provided fields are updated or how different chat types (channel vs supergroup) affect permission handling. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, this is a minor gap; the description is still highly useful.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with its meaning, units, or keys: chat identifies the group/channel, title is the new name, about is the new description, photo is the avatar file, slowmode includes units and a way to disable, permissions has an example and key enumeration, and forum explains its effect. This is exemplary.

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?

The description clearly states it changes a group's or channel's title, description, photo, slow mode, permissions, and forum mode. The verb 'change' is specific, the resource is named, and the list of editable fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_topic_edit or tg_edit.

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?

The description provides clear context on what can be edited (chat settings) and even includes constraints like slowmode being supergroups-only. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tg_topic_edit or tg_edit, so it falls short of the highest score.

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