telegram-set-admin

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds that the action is 'with full permissions' – a helpful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects like revoking previous admin settings or the exact permissions granted. No contradiction with 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?

Single sentence, 70 characters, front-loaded with action. No wasted words; every piece of information is essential.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description could explain what 'full permissions' entails or contrast with partial admin rights. Given no output schema and good annotations, it is mostly complete but leaves minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (chatId, userId, title all described). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Promote a user to admin in a supergroup or channel with full permissions'. It specifies the verb (promote), resource (user to admin), and scope (supergroup or channel). This distinguishes it from siblings like telegram-remove-admin.

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 implies usage for granting admin privileges with full permissions, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., telegram-set-chat-permissions for granular rights) or when not to use. Lacks exclusions or context.

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