Invoke MTProto

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

Annotations give destructiveHint and openWorldHint; description adds that dangerous methods require a flag and success returns an API result dict or normalized error. No contradiction, and adds helpful context beyond 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?

Three focused sentences: purpose, dangerous requirement, and success format. No fluff, front-loaded with essential information.

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 low-level nature and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, safety, and result format. The external documentation link fills any gaps. Could mention more about error handling or rate limits, but sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining normalization and the allow_dangerous flag's role, complementing the schema without redundancy.

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 it invokes low-level MTProto methods not wrapped by other tools, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message by focusing on unsupported methods.

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?

Explicitly states dangerous methods require allow_dangerous=true and points to full documentation. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the context of 'not wrapped by other tools' implies usage.

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