tg_folder_edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that delete only removes the folder and leaves chats intact, and that omitted arguments preserve existing settings. It also details the rule checkboxes. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but covers the main safety-relevant traits.

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: a one-line summary, a crucial safety note about non-destructive behavior, then a clean Args list. Each parameter line is informative and not redundant; it is somewhat long but appropriate for 9 parameters.

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 9 parameters and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, safety, and all parameter meanings. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists. It also does not explicitly discuss operation combinations (e.g., create+add), but the 'anything not passed' statement implies composability. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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 zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. All 9 parameters are explained with added detail like 'max 12 characters' for create, 'from tg_folders' for folder, and the specific rule names, providing far more meaning than the bare 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?

The description opens with 'Create, delete, rename and fill Telegram folders,' a specific verb-resource combination that clearly states the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_folders (likely listing) and tg_topic_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?

It gives clear context on how to reference existing folders ('from tg_folders') and explains that unspecified arguments are left untouched, which is important for safe combination with other operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools when not to use this one, but the context is sufficient.

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