chat_create

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructiveness. The description adds the crucial behavioral detail that the creation is asynchronous: it returns immediately with a 'creating' status and requires polling via chat_get until active. It could also note any idempotency or error states, but overall it's transparent.

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, front-loading the main action, then using an IMPORTANT section for critical details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure allows rapid comprehension without fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (async creation, specific case file, parameter generation) and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: how to use, what to expect immediately, and next steps. It is complete enough for an AI agent to successfully invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying that 'id' must be a UUID v4, 'service' must be Telegram, and 'caseFileId' must be the personal case file. It covers the required parameters but omits details on optional ones like serviceTitle and serviceDescription, though their names are self-explanatory.

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 tool creates a certified chat channel for Telegram, using specific verbs and resource identification. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chat_get (read) and chat_certificate_create (certificate) by focusing solely 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 explicitly instructs the agent on prerequisites: only use the personal case file found via case_file_list, generate a UUID v4 for id, set service to Telegram, and wait for active status before further calls. It warns against using manually created case files, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition.

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