ads_telegram_public_reply_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the key side effect: it changes only local audit data and never sends a message. It does not address permissions, idempotency, or whether status changes are reversible, but the critical safety behavior is explicit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the most important safety constraint. There is no wasted text.

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 gives an agent enough to understand the tool's core purpose and non-sending behavior, which is important given the lack of annotations. But for a five-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, it leaves optional parameters and status semantics unexplained, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 compensate for five undocumented parameters. It only implies the 'id' (saved reply) and 'status' (review status) parameters and says nothing about decision_note, our_reply_url, our_reply_message_id, or what each status enum value means.

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: 'Set the review status of one saved public Telegram reply.' It also distinguishes itself from message-sending siblings by clarifying 'never sends a message,' so an agent can tell this is a local status update rather than a reply action.

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 implies usage by saying it changes only local audit data and never sends a message, which distinguishes it from reply-sending tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over ads_telegram_public_reply_upsert, ads_telegram_public_post_reply, or how to sequence it after saving a reply.

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