Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, mentioning that it returns a success message or error, but doesn't detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the message can't be edited (e.g., time limits). With annotations covering basic safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 purpose statement, Args, and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no redundant information, though the Korean language might require translation for some agents, slightly affecting accessibility.

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 tool's moderate complexity (editing messages), annotations provide safety hints, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like edit limitations or error cases.

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 description must compensate. It provides a clear Args section listing parameters (chat_id, message_id, text, parse_mode) with brief explanations and default values, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints like text length limits, which are in the schema but not described.

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: '이미 전송된 텔레그램 메시지의 내용을 수정합니다' (edits the content of an already sent Telegram message). It uses specific verbs ('수정합니다' - edits) and identifies the resource (Telegram message), distinguishing it from sibling tools like telegram_send_message (sends new messages) and telegram_delete_message (deletes messages).

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 context by specifying '이미 전송된' (already sent) messages, suggesting this is for editing existing messages rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like telegram_send_message for new messages or telegram_delete_message for removal, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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