telegram-edit-topic

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and openWorldHint=true (potential side effects). The description mentions editable fields but does not disclose behavioral details like required permissions, rate limits, or impact on topic history. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 front-loads the verb and resource, then lists all possible modifications. Every word is purposeful, no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and openWorldHint, the description adequately lists the editable fields but omits contextual details like required permissions (e.g., must be admin), possible errors, or return behavior. It provides minimum viable completeness but leaves gaps for safe operation.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description mildly augments by listing high-level actions (rename, change icon, etc.), but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Edit' and resource 'forum topic', and enumerates specific actions: rename, change icon emoji, open/close, show/hide. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create-topic' and 'delete-topic' by specifying the edit operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edit-message, toggle-forum-mode). It does not mention prerequisites such as admin permissions or that the chat must be a forum supergroup. Without explicit usage conditions, the agent may misuse the tool.

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