telegram_download_media

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

With no annotations on the tool, the description must carry full disclosure. It mentions the destination root and that it returns the saved path, but does not mention side effects such as file overwriting, what happens if the message contains no media, or whether it creates directories. The behavior is partially transparent but not fully specified.

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 two sentences and immediately states the primary action, destination, and return value. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core context: what gets downloaded, where it goes, and what is returned. It lacks additional context about error handling or overwrite behavior, but for the tool's scope it is nearly complete.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (chat, message_id, filename), including the fact that filename is relative to the MCP download root. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond that, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Download' and the resource 'media/document from a Telegram message', and indicates the destination root. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like telegram_send_file (which uploads) and telegram_get_messages (which lists messages) by focusing on downloading a specific message's media. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally distinctive.

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 implies usage when a media/document from a specific Telegram message is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram_send_file or telegram_get_messages. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., needing a message ID from another tool) or scenarios where this tool would not be appropriate. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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