Save a Telegram attachment locally

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

Even with annotations present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: no overwrites, no automatic opening/execution, rejection of protected/self-destructing media, persistence of copies, and size caps. These details go well beyond the structured annotations and meaningfully reduce operational risk.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by tightly written behaviors and constraints. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key side effects, return shape, security rejections, and persistence semantics. It does not explicitly describe the role of chat_id and message_id in identifying the selected attachment, which is a minor gap given the message-selection context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. It mentions size limits that map to max_bytes, yet it does not explain chat_id or message_id at all, nor what happens when a file exceeds the chosen limit. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not add sufficient semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save an explicitly selected document, photo, audio or full video to a private folder.' It clearly differentiates this download tool from preview-oriented siblings by stating it returns a local path and SHA256 rather than file bytes, and by noting preview tools keep their existing limits.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs a persistent local copy and integrity hash rather than in-context bytes. It references 'original preview tools' as an alternative category, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or state when not to use this tool.

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