telegram-create-folder

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with unknown output structure (openWorldHint=true). The description adds behavioral details: returns the new folder ID and constrains emoticon to a single emoji character. It does not cover all potential side effects, but given annotations, it provides sufficient additional context.

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 three sentences, each delivering essential information: primary action and return value, two usage modes, and a constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core creation logic, two key parameter groups, and a notable constraint. It lacks guidance on parameter interaction (e.g., mixing flags and includePeers) but is otherwise adequate for a selective agent.

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?

While the schema describes all 13 parameters individually, the description adds semantic grouping: 'type flags to auto-include entire categories' vs. 'list specific chats in includePeers'. It also adds the constraint that emoticon must be a single emoji character, which is not fully captured in the schema's maxLength=2 description.

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 creates a new Telegram chat folder and returns its ID. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like telegram-get-chat-folders, telegram-edit-folder, telegram-delete-folder by focusing on creation and mentioning specific usage patterns (type flags vs. includePeers).

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 provides guidance on two main usage patterns: using type flags for auto-including categories or listing specific chats in includePeers. It does not explicitly contrast with other folder tools or explain when to use this over editing, but the context of sibling tool names makes it reasonably clear.

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