Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'multiple messages at once' which hints at batch capability, but doesn't mention 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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 that this is a destructive tool with annotations covering safety, an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), and the description is concise, it's minimally adequate. However, for a tool with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidelines, it could benefit from more detail on parameters and context 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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'in a Telegram chat' and 'multiple messages,' which loosely corresponds to chat_id and message_ids parameters, but doesn't explain their formats, constraints (like maxItems: 100), or required types. It adds some meaning but insufficiently compensates for the schema gap.

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 ('delete multiple messages at once') and resource ('in a Telegram chat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'telegram_delete_message' by specifying 'multiple messages' versus single message deletion, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_delete_message' for single deletions or other deletion-related tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist.

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