telegram-unban-user

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and may have side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that the action is unbanning from a supergroup/channel, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the user must currently be banned, or the response format. The description adds only marginal value beyond 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, clear sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., admin rights) and expected response, but these are reasonably inferable from the action type. More detail could improve completeness, but it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly in most cases.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions ('Chat ID or username', 'User ID or username to unban'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 verb 'Unban', the resource 'a previously banned user', and the scope 'from a supergroup or channel'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'telegram-unblock-user' (for private chats) and 'telegram-ban-user' (the inverse 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 explicitly states the precondition ('previously banned user') and the context ('supergroup or channel'), making it clear when to use. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives for other scenarios (e.g., unblocking in private chats), though sibling tool names provide some differentiation.

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