telegram_drafts

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantive context beyond them: the gating model (enumeration, hard floor per row, the chat's read policy), the rule that Saved Messages/Service Notifications drafts are never listed or counted, and that reading does not clear a draft.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then usage routing, then behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the 'enumeration, then the hard floor per row' clause is dense and slightly cryptic for readers unfamiliar with the gating model.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return ordering (newest first) and content (owning chat per draft) plus the non-clearing semantics. For a read-only listing tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, account, and include_private are already documented. The description touches gating and the chat read policy, which loosely relates to include_private, but adds no direct syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (drafts) and its scope (what was started and never sent, newest first, with the owning chat). It explicitly distinguishes itself from telegram_scheduled and telegram_chat_read, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger (user asks about text started and never sent) and explicit exclusions routing to the right siblings: telegram_scheduled for queued-to-send messages and telegram_chat_read for sent messages. Nothing is left to inference.

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