toggle_forum_mode

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that after enabling, the supergroup becomes a 'forum.' It also notes the member requirement. However, it does not disclose side effects of disabling, reversibility, or the effect of the `tabs` parameter. Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds some but not rich behavioral detail.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides relevant information: what the tool does and a key prerequisite.

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?

The description covers the primary action and the main constraint (≥200 members), and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, it leaves the `tabs` parameter undefined and does not mention any limitations or effects beyond the enabling action. For a tool with three parameters, this is a notable gap.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The `chat` parameter is implied as the target, but `tabs` is entirely unexplained, and `enabled` is only implicitly connected to the toggle action. The description fails to compensate for the absence of parameter documentation.

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 verb and resource: 'enable/disable forum mode (topics) in a supergroup.' It specifies the action as a toggle and identifies the target as a supergroup. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools that manage topics within an already-enabled forum.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'Requires ≥200 members.' This tells the user when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous and the condition is valuable guidance. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but the context is sufficient.

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