start_bot

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

Annotations already convey that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the 'chat' parameter default ('None = личный чат с ботом') and clarifying the action as sending /start. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the bot must already exist, or if repeated calls have different effects), so it only partially adds value beyond annotations.

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 purpose line followed by a concise, structured argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with minimal fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and quickly enumerates parameters.

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 simple tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers all parameters and the core action. It could arguably mention prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., bot not found), but the combination of annotations, schema, and description is sufficient for an agent to 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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description carries full responsibility. It explains each parameter clearly: 'bot' as id/@username, 'chat' as destination with None meaning private chat, and 'start_param' as the deep-link payload. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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: 'Запустить бота (отправить /start) с deep-link параметром' (start a bot by sending /start with a deep-link parameter). This is a specific verb+resource combination, distinct from other messaging tools like send_message. The inclusion of the deep-link aspect further sharpens the purpose.

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 usage context is implied: it's for starting a bot via /start, which is clear from the description. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_message to interact with a bot) or any exclusions. The description focuses on what it does rather than when to choose it.

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