Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the agent knows it performs a write operation safely. The description adds that it sends videos to Telegram chats, which provides basic context but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, file size constraints, or what happens on failure.

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 extremely concise - just one sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from being slightly more informative given the parameter complexity.

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 video-sending tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the single-sentence description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description fails to explain key aspects like required authentication, file format/size limitations, or how this differs from similar media-sending tools in the sibling list.

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 full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only mentions that 'URL or file_id' can be used for the video parameter, completely ignoring the 6 other parameters (chat_id, caption, parse_mode, duration, width, height) that are documented in the schema but not mentioned in the description.

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 ('send video') and target ('Telegram chat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'telegram_send_animation' or 'telegram_send_video_note' that also send media content.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_send_animation' or 'telegram_send_media_group'. It mentions that URLs or file_ids can be used, but this is parameter information rather than usage context.

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