im_send_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary behavior (send file to chat/private dialog) and lists the three input paths, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or what happens when conflicting parameters are provided. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key input options without any filler. It is concise and every word contributes meaning.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the tool is moderately complex. The schema covers parameters well, but the description lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools and does not describe the result of the operation. It is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter individually documented. The description adds a high-level grouping of input modes (local_path/content_base64 vs file_id), but this is already reflected in the schema's file_id description. The description provides no additional value beyond the structured schema.

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 'Отправить' (send) with a clear resource 'файл в чат/личный диалог' (file to chat/private dialog), and further specifies three input modes (local path, base64, existing file_id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like im_send_message (sends text) and disk_upload (uploads to drive).

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 the tool is for sending files into chat contexts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as disk_upload, im_send_message, or task_attach_file. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage context is only implied.

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