tg_mute

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the default mute duration is indefinite, and the same action can unmute via a boolean switch. It also implies reversibility through the unmute option, which is helpful beyond the raw annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence captures the full action, the optional duration, the default, and the inverse operation. Every clause earns its place, and there is no padding or repetition.

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 simple three-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter semantics well. The only minor gap is not specifying how 'chat' should be passed, but the required chat field and the resource name make this a small omission rather than a blocking one.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does clarify that hours is a duration in hours and that the default is indefinite, and that unmute toggles the mute state. However, the required 'chat' parameter is left without any format or type guidance, so coverage is partial.

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?

Description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Mute a chat', with a clear optional duration and an explicit unmute branch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tg_block or tg_alert, even without naming them, because the action and resource are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as tg_block, tg_alert, or tg_notify. The description only states the action and parameter behavior; it does not specify preconditions, exclusions, or comparison with other chat-moderation tools.

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