telegram-block-user

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

Description adds the behavioral effect 'Blocked users cannot send you messages', which supplements annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). However, it does not mention reversibility via unblock, or any side effects beyond blocking messages.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences with no unnecessary words. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Tool is simple (one param, no output schema) and description covers the basic action. However, it lacks guidance on parameter format, user existence requirements, or how it interacts with other states (e.g., already blocked).

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with description 'User ID or username to block'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that. 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?

Description clearly states 'Block a Telegram user' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ban-user and kick-user through the word 'block' and the effect 'cannot send you messages', but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram-ban-user or telegram-kick-user. The description only states the effect without context on prerequisites or exclusion scenarios.

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