Настроить меню команд

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical traits: unlisted commands are kept by default, removal requires remove_missing=true, and the Telegram menu update only occurs when sync=true or after a bot restart. This provides significant insight into side effects beyond the basic annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It packs essential details without redundancy, making it 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the core behavior, edge cases (keep vs remove), and external effects (Telegram menu sync). It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though return values are not described.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces the semantics of remove_missing and sync but does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'приводит ... к' (brings to) with a clear resource 'меню команд бота' and details the exact operations: adds missing commands, updates existing ones, and reorders according to the list. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like bots_save or bots_control.

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 gives clear behavioral context, such as the default preservation of unlisted commands and the condition for updating the Telegram menu via sync. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to other tools, but the operation is self-contained and well-scoped.

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