telegram-toggle-anti-spam

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation). The description adds value by specifying the requirement for admin permission and that the action is toggling aggressive anti-spam. It doesn't mention side effects or reversibility, but the behavioral traits are adequately disclosed 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?

The description is a single sentence that contains all essential information: action, resource, scope, and requirement. No redundant words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, operational context (supergroup, permission), and parameters. For a simple toggle operation, this is complete. No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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% with clear param descriptions (chatId, enabled). The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. It reinforces the scope (supergroup) but that is contextual, not parameter semantics. 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 tool enables or disables aggressive anti-spam filtering in a supergroup. It distinguishes from siblings like telegram-report-spam by specifying the action on anti-spam settings, not reporting. It adds constraints (supergroup only, not broadcast channels, requires admin permission), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the tool is for supergroups only and requires admin with ban_users permission, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It indirectly tells not to use for broadcast channels or without permissions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like telegram-report-spam or ban-user for other spam-related actions.

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