Invoke MTProto

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the tool's potential for harm is known. The description adds that dangerous methods are blocked unless allow_dangerous=true is set, which is a key safety detail. It also describes the success output as an API result dict or normalized error, providing behavioral expectations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a link. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately addresses the safety concern. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and the link provides optional depth without cluttering the primary description.

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 (low-level invoke, 4 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, safety, and output format. It references full documentation for more details. The only minor gap is not explaining the 'normalized error' format, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it's sufficiently 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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters, so the burden on the description is low. The description itself does not add much beyond the schema, only mentioning the normalization of method names. Thus, a score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides strong semantic information.

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 this tool is for low-level MTProto invoke, specifically for methods not wrapped by other tools. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or get_chat_info, which cover common operations. The verb 'invoke' combined with 'MTProto' precisely identifies the action and resource.

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 advises using this tool when a Telegram API method is not covered by other tools, implying when to avoid it. It explicitly mentions dangerous methods require allow_dangerous=true, providing a clear usage condition. A link to full documentation offers further context, but it could be more explicit about not using it when a dedicated tool exists.

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