tg_create_group

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that users can be invited immediately during creation, but it does not disclose longer-term effects such as whether the group is immediately visible, whether creation may fail due to duplicates, or what happens to partially created entities.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a concise Args block. Every line adds necessary semantic information with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 creation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: required title, optional users, kind, and about are all explained. It lacks only minor operational context such as expected return value or how to address the newly created chat afterwards, but nothing essential to a first call 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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so well: title is described as the chat name, users lists accepted identifier forms, kind explains the group/channel distinction, and about is identified as the chat description. This goes well beyond 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 a specific action and resource: 'Create a supergroup or a channel and optionally invite people right away.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like tg_topic_create or tg_invite by naming both the object created and the optional follow-on invite behavior.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use the tool, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as 'use tg_invite for existing chats' or 'use tg_topic_create for topics.' The guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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