Notify L2 support

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

The description adds the useful context that this writes to a 'mock' outbox, indicating it's a simulated integration. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, so the description adds the mock detail beyond structured data.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words.

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 tool with a complex nested request object and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the purpose of L2 escalation, the meaning of 'mock', or how the output is returned, leaving the agent to infer from field names alone.

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 description coverage, and the description mentions no parameter details. Field names like ticket_id and summary are self-explanatory, but the description fails to explain the request structure or semantics of idempotency_key, priority, or facts.

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 writes an L2 escalation to a mock Telegram outbox, with a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('Telegram outbox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that manage tickets, knowledge, GitHub bugs, and feedback, as this is for Telegram notifications.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tickets_add_reply or github_create_bug. The description implies use for L2 escalation but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites or exclusions.

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