telegram_agent_set_scenario

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

There are no annotations and the description only reveals that the tool replaces a scenario. It does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions, idempotency, or any other behavioral details.

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 with no redundant wording or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 simple setter this is minimally adequate, but it omits output expectations, error behavior, and the prerequisite that the chat must already be enrolled. It is not misleading, but it leaves some operational context unspecified.

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 description loosely maps 'enrolled chat' to chat_id and 'scenario' to the scenario value, but it provides no detail about the expected object structure for scenario. The input schema has no per-parameter descriptions, so the description does not fully compensate.

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 ('Replace') and the resource ('the scenario for an enrolled chat'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like telegram_agent_get_scenario.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_scenario, enroll, or route. The phrase 'enrolled chat' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit instruction or condition for use.

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