Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which correctly align with the 'delete' action. The description adds useful context by specifying it's for Telegram chats and mentions potential error returns, but doesn't elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or irreversible nature beyond what annotations imply.

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 clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the Args section could be more integrated rather than separate, and some information is redundant with the schema.

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 destructive operation with good annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters adequately. It mentions error returns but could better address permissions, limitations, or differences from sibling tools to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section that documents both parameters (chat_id and message_id) with clear Korean descriptions. However, it doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what's already evident from parameter names and basic descriptions.

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 specific action ('텔레그램 채팅에서 특정 메시지를 삭제합니다' - 'Delete a specific message in a Telegram chat') with the exact resource (message in a chat). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'telegram_delete_messages' (plural) by specifying single message deletion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_delete_messages' for bulk deletion or 'telegram_edit_message' for modification instead of deletion. There are no prerequisites or contextual usage instructions mentioned.

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