set_chat_description

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention permissions, side effects on existing data, or behavior when the description parameter is omitted. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes nothing beyond the literal action.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no superfluous content. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 a simple two-parameter tool, but the description is too terse. It fails to convey that the description parameter is optional, nor does it explain expected behavior when omitted (e.g., clearing the description). No permissions or chat-type restrictions are mentioned, leaving notable gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema describes chat_id with 'Chat ID or @username' and description with type and maxLength, but the description parameter lacks a semantic explanation. The tool description does not clarify the meaning or usage of the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 'Change the description of a chat.' uses a specific verb ('Change') and clearly identifies the resource ('description of a chat'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_chat_title and set_chat_photo, which target different attributes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about permissions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It merely states the action, leaving the agent without support for selecting between comparable set_chat_* tools.

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