Подключить или настроить бота

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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the token is validated with a live request to Telegram and stored encrypted, and changing the token or mode restarts a running bot. This discloses non-obvious side effects and asynchronous behavior that an agent would not infer from the schema or 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?

Three short sentences front-load the essential create/update distinction, then add two important behavioral facts. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description covers the main usage modes and important side effects, while the schema already documents all 9 parameters and the annotations cover the safety profile. It lacks an explicit note about return values or failure behavior, but with no output schema and strong schema coverage the description is still sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the bot parameter (absence means new, presence means update), token validation and encryption, and the restart effect of changing token or mode, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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 both connects a new bot and modifies existing bot settings, distinguishing these two modes by the presence of the bot parameter. This separates it from sibling bot tools like bots_delete, bots_control, or bots_reveal_token.

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?

It explicitly says to omit bot to connect a new bot and include bot to change settings, which gives clear context for the create-versus-update decision. However, it does not name alternatives such as bots_webhook_rotate or bots_control, so exclusion guidance relies on general tool knowledge rather than explicit direction.

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