invoke_raw

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that the tool 'may change account state or cause flood-wait.' This goes beyond the annotations and alerts the agent to significant risks. It doesn't enumerate all possible effects but covers the key hazards.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, an Args section with both parameters, and a prominent danger warning. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 raw escape-hatch tool with broad scope and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to invoke it, the main risks, and when to use it. It stops short of explaining return values or error handling, but these are less critical for a generic invoker.

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 explain parameters. It does so by describing method_path as a 'full python path' with an example, and kwargs_json as a 'JSON-string with kwargs for the method constructor.' This provides meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though it could be slightly more precise about the exact format requirements.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'call arbitrary Telegram MTProto method via Telethon.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the high-level sibling tools by positioning itself as a low-level raw invocation tool. The warning 'use only when the needed high-level method is missing' further clarifies its role as a fallback.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use only when the needed high-level method is missing.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool and implies that high-level alternatives should be preferred. The danger warning also sets expectations for cautious usage.

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