promote_admin

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that rights are configurable ('с заданными правами'), but it doesn't disclose important behaviors like whether existing admin rights are overwritten or whether authorization is needed. This is acceptable given annotation coverage 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action efficiently. It is appropriately concise with no 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 the complexity of an 18-parameter mutation tool, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details beyond the annotations. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the overall context remains incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 18 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description only mentions 'specified rights' without explaining any parameter. It doesn't clarify required identifiers (chat, user), the meaning of the boolean permission flags, or the rank field. The schema titles provide some semantics, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter descriptions.

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 'Назначить участника администратором с заданными правами' clearly states the action (appoint as administrator) and resource (participant). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool demote_admin, making differentiation mostly implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like demote_admin or restrict_participant. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no mention of prerequisites such as requiring existing admin rights or the effects of re-promoting an existing admin.

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