chats_mute

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only transport plumbing (POST endpoint, gRPC method, socket event) and says nothing about effect scope: whether muting is permanent, what notifications it suppresses, idempotency, or required permissions.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the verb first, which is good. The parenthetical transport triple arguably adds little for an agent choosing a tool, but it is compact and not bloated.

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, two undocumented required parameters, and no stated side effects or permissions, the description leaves real gaps. An agent cannot tell what state change results or what to expect on failure.

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 0% — chatId and channelId carry only opaque example IDs and no descriptions. The description supplies zero compensating meaning about these two required parameters, so the agent must guess at their format and semantics.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Mute a chat'. That is unambiguous for an agent. However, it offers no differentiation from the very similar sibling chats_unmute (or chats_archive / chats_pin), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to mute versus unmute, archive, or pin, nor any precondition (e.g. must the agent be a participant?). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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