telegram_archive_sync

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false) are consistent with the description, and the description adds substantial context they do not carry: local-only writes, no background/bulk sync, watermark-bounded incremental fetch plus backfill, and metadata-only attachments. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, and the 'read policy checked on every read' claim is stated but not elaborated.

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 most important information (local write, one-chat scope) is front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct fact. It runs long at roughly six clauses, and the sync/backfill/complete material partly duplicates the `limit` schema text rather than compressing it.

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 mutating, open-world, non-idempotent write tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: scope, repeat-call semantics, attachment handling, and policy checks. It mentions the `complete` field but does not describe the rest of the response, which leaves a small gap on what a caller gets back.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above it by explaining the interaction the schema only hints at: new messages first, then older backfill, with `complete` signalling whether history start was reached. It adds little for `account` and `chat` beyond the schema, so it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource up front ('Effect local_write: it writes a SQLite file on this machine, never anything on Telegram') and immediately scopes it to 'one chat copied to the local archive.' It also names the siblings it is NOT (telegram_archive_search, telegram_chat_read), so an agent can disambiguate without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants one chat copied to the local archive so later questions do not hit Telegram') and explicit when-not ('Do not use this to search that copy'), each paired with the named alternative tool. The 'no background sync, nothing archived that was not asked for' line removes any ambiguity about scope.

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