telegram-toggle-channel-signatures

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

The description confirms a write operation (as indicated by readOnlyHint=false) and adds contextual boundaries (admin required, not for supergroups). It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but annotations already signal non-read-only behavior. No contradiction with 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 followed by a clarifying note. It is efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. Could be slightly restructured, but overall no waste.

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?

The description covers the purpose and prerequisites but omits return value or confirmation. Since there is no output schema, the description could add what the tool returns (e.g., success status). For a simple toggle tool, it is mostly complete but lacks this detail.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of chatId, default for enabled). 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Enable or disable') and the resource ('author signatures on broadcast channel posts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is for broadcast channels only, not supergroups, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 (to toggle signatures) and provides key requirements ('Channel admin required' and 'not supported for supergroups'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but given its uniqueness, this is adequate.

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