telegram-set-admin

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the substantive burden and does so well: it enumerates the exact privilege set that will be conferred and explicitly carves out the one right it does not confer. It stops short of stating permission prerequisites or whether the promotion is reversible/revocable, which for a privilege-granting mutation would be the next valuable detail.

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 tight sentences: action first, granted rights second, explicit exclusion third. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most safety-relevant caveat is placed last for emphasis.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers what the operation does to the target user and the boundary of the granted powers. The main remaining gap is the caller-side precondition (requester must be an administrator), which an agent would need before attempting the call.

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% and all three parameters (title, chatId, userId) are self-documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format hints (e.g., channel vs supergroup semantics, admin title handling) beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Promote a user to admin in a supergroup or channel') with the scope of where it applies. This is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling telegram-remove-admin and from telegram-set-chat-permissions, which operate on different objects.

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 by enumerating the rights granted, and the closing sentence implies when this is the wrong lever ('Does not grant the right to add other admins'), which is a useful implicit scoping cue. However, it never states the prerequisite (the caller must already be an admin/owner) nor routes the agent to telegram-remove-admin or telegram-set-chat-permissions as alternatives.

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