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 the annotations. While annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, the description specifies the admin permission requirement and clarifies the default behavior when message_id is None (unpins the most recent pinned message). This provides important operational context that annotations alone don't convey.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations in a formatted Args section, and return information. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 (mutation requiring permissions), the description provides good coverage of purpose, parameters, and behavioral constraints. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is lack of error handling specifics beyond mentioning 'error' in returns.

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 explaining parameters. It clearly explains both chat_id and message_id parameters, including the special behavior when message_id is None. The description adds meaningful semantic context that the bare schema lacks, though it could provide more detail about chat_id format.

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 ('unpin a message from a chat') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'telegram_pin_message'. It uses precise Korean terminology that matches the tool's function without being tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to unpin a message from a chat') and mentions a prerequisite ('bot needs admin permissions'). However, it doesn't provide guidance on when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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