create_dialog_filter

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate that. It does add useful constraints like '1 — резерв All' (1 is reserved for All) and implies that updating existing filters is possible, but does not disclose behaviors like whether updates merge or replace existing configurations, or any permission/rate-limit specifics. Thus it adds some but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every line provides value, with no waste. The structure is a simple list, which is efficient for 12 parameters, though not particularly elegant.

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 complexity (12 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains all parameters and constraints. However, it misses usage guidelines and behavioral edge cases (e.g., update semantics, error scenarios), leaving some gaps. It is complete enough for basic invocation but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter. It clarifies that filter_id is a unique ID in the range 2-255 with 1 reserved, included_chats accepts IDs or usernames, and boolean flags auto-include or exclude categories. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states 'Создать/обновить кастомную папку диалогов' (Create/update custom dialog folder), providing a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dialog_filters and delete_dialog_filter, which are listed in the sibling tools.

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 explains the tool's function (create/update) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools for listing or deleting filters. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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