Update Telegram Notification Settings

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the operation is a full replace (omitting fields overwrites them), that only alert routing changes and no funds move, and that a wallet signature plus a linked Telegram account are required. The "Idempotent" restatement is redundant with idempotentHint, but the replace-semantics warning is exactly the non-obvious risk an agent needs.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the operation and the critical complete-object rule, then the safety note, then prerequisites. The parenthetical recovery step is the only clause that could be trimmed, and it earns its place.

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 mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), it covers safety profile, replacement semantics, workflow, and auth prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage on two deeply nested objects, the description carries the load and does so structurally: it explains the `isEnabled` + numeric value/range shape and that complete objects must be sent. What it does not supply is the meaning or units of individual filter fields (`reclaimAlertTime`, `remainAmount`, `apy`, etc.), so an agent still guesses at values.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Replace the Telegram alert filters." It is unambiguous against siblings because it explicitly names the companion reader tool (`tronsave_get_telegram_notify_setting`) and the "replace" framing distinguishes it from a create/get operation.

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?

Prescribes the exact read-modify-write workflow ("read the current ones with `tronsave_get_telegram_notify_setting`, edit, send back") and names the alternative for the read half. It also states prerequisites (wallet signature identity, linked Telegram account), leaving little to inference.

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