Запуск и остановка бота

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

Annotations already signal mutability and non-destructiveness, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that start performs command menu synchronization and that separate sync is needed after command edits—details not present in the annotations or schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema) and the annotations available, the description covers the core actions and the important sync nuance. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the relationship between the action parameter and the sync behavior, particularly why sync_commands may be necessary after editing commands, which adds semantic meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function: launching, stopping, restarting a bot, and sending the command menu to Telegram. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bots_commands_apply, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context: starting the bot syncs the menu automatically, and a separate sync is needed after editing commands for an already running bot. It does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, but gives concrete scenarios for when to use this tool's sync_commands action.

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