tg_create_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of creating a supergroup/channel and optionally inviting users, and clarifies 'kind' values. Yet it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or other side effects, missing important context for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. No wasted words, and every sentence contributes meaningful 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 is adequate for invoking the tool: required title, optional users, and kind/about are all addressed. Since an output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The only gap is lack of explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, which is minor given the clear purpose.

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 compensate. It fully does: each parameter is explained with added meaning—title as name, users with accepted formats, kind with values, and about as description. This goes well beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 the action 'Create a supergroup or a channel' and optionally inviting people, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tg_chat_edit and tg_invite by focusing on creation.

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 gives clear context: use this to create a new chat and optionally add users immediately. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like tg_invite for existing chats or tg_chat_edit for modifications, so there are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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