addStickerToSet

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the mutation ('Add'), a successful return value ('Returns True on success'), and capacity constraints. It does not cover failure modes or permission requirements beyond the bot-ownership implication, making this adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second provides relevant capacity limits, and the third gives the success return value. Every sentence earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.

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 core purpose, the bot-ownership prerequisite, capacity bounds, and return value, while the schema handles nested InputSticker details. It lacks explicit alternative routing and failure semantics, so it is not fully complete, but it provides enough context for basic 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters and already provides meaningful descriptions for user_id, name, and sticker. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific operation: 'Add a new sticker to a set created by the bot.' It clearly identifies the resource (sticker set) and an ownership constraint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from createNewStickerSet but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage context: use this for existing sets created by the bot, and the capacity limits tell the agent when adding is possible. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like createNewStickerSet or uploadStickerFile, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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