Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true (mutation) and readOnlyHint=false (write operation), the description specifies the bot needs admin permissions and clarifies the temporal aspect ('until_date' for temporary vs permanent bans). It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling specifics, or what happens if the user is already banned, but provides meaningful operational context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and prerequisites, the Args section documents parameters, and Returns indicates outcome. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 this is a destructive operation with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description does a good job covering the essentials: purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and return indication. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. It could improve by mentioning error conditions or what happens on repeated bans, but covers the core context adequately for agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of parameter documentation. It lists all three parameters (chat_id, user_id, until_date) and provides semantic meaning for each, explaining what 'until_date' represents and that 'None' means permanent ban. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats beyond what's obvious from names, and doesn't provide examples or edge cases for parameter values.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('차단합니다' - ban) and resource ('그룹/채널에서 특정 사용자' - specific user in group/channel). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only ban operation (vs unban_user for reversal). The description goes beyond the title to specify the action and target.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('그룹/채널에서' - in group/channel) and mentions a prerequisite ('봇이 관리자 권한 필요' - bot needs admin permissions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like temporary restrictions vs permanent bans, nor does it reference the sibling unban_user tool for reversal operations.

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