telegram-toggle-anti-spam

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

The annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'enable or disable', failing to disclose effects like whether it affects existing messages or only future ones. No annotation contradictions.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and constraints, with 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?

For a simple toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, where it works, and required permissions. It could mention persistence of the setting, but overall it is adequate.

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 covers both parameters (chatId, enabled) with good descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 enables or disables aggressive anti-spam filtering in a supergroup. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'report-spam' or 'ban-user', which could confuse an agent selecting the correct tool.

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 specifies that it applies only to supergroups (not broadcast channels) and requires admin with ban_users permission. This provides clear context and prerequisites, but does not include when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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