telegram-toggle-anti-spam

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

The description adds the permission requirement beyond annotations, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing messages) or error conditions. With annotations already indicating it's a write operation, the description provides modest added value.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and constraints. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but not necessary.

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 parameter coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, constraints, permission requirement. It covers the essential aspects for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters fully.

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 'enable or disable' and the resource 'aggressive anti-spam filtering in a supergroup'. It specifies constraints (supergroup only, not broadcast channels, requires admin permission), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like telegram-ban-user or telegram-report-spam.

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 when to use the tool (toggle anti-spam filtering) and provides necessary context (supergroup only, admin permission required). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context helps differentiate from siblings.

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