hideGeneralForumTopic

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses permission requirements, the automatic closing side effect if the topic is open, and the return value on success. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a simple tool.

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, each earning its place: the action, the prerequisite, and the side effect/return value. The primary verb is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant information.

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 low complexity—one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects—the description is complete. It covers scope, required permissions, behavioral side effects, and the success return value, so an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

The only parameter, chat_id, is already fully described in the schema with its type and format. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies since the schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Hide') and clearly identifies the resource ('General' topic in a forum supergroup chat). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like closeGeneralForumTopic and unhideGeneralForumTopic by naming the exact hide action in its scope.

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 invocation context: it applies to a forum supergroup and requires administrator rights with can_manage_topics. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as unhideGeneralForumTopic, but the conditions for use are clear enough that an agent can decide when to call it.

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