Invoke MTProto

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that dangerous methods need allow_dangerous=true and that the result is an API result dict or normalized error. This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting 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?

Two sentences plus a URL. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, the second adds safety and success behavior, and the third provides a link to full docs. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (low-level arbitrary API calls) and the presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers purpose, safety, result format, and a documentation link. It is complete for agent use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but the schema descriptions are adequate.

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 is a low-level MTProto invoke for methods not wrapped by other tools, which identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the higher-level sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly mentions to use for methods not wrapped by other tools and warns about dangerous methods requiring allow_dangerous=true. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternative tool names beyond the implicit differentiation.

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