ads_telegram_account_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that login is local, that GramJS supports a QR flow, and that codes/2FA passwords should not be pasted into a hosted chat, but it omits what the tool returns, whether sessions persist, and what each credential path does.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the security warning follows immediately.

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?

This is an auth tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 25% schema description coverage. The description does not explain prerequisites, flow stages, return values, or how the caller knows login succeeded, leaving important gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 25%, with just the qr parameter described. The description mentions QR flow and warns about codes/2FA passwords, which loosely maps to qr, code, and password, but it never explains phone or clarifies the relationship among the four optional parameters.

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: 'Continue local Telegram user-account login through the selected backend.' It is clearly an authentication operation, distinguishable from data-fetch siblings like ads_telegram_account_status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 word 'Continue' implies this happens after an earlier auth step, and the security warning gives practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus ads_telegram_account_status or how to choose between QR and code/password flows.

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