send_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the action and notes that video can be a URL or file_id. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, response format, or any other behavioral context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and adding one key parameter detail. No filler or 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?

For a simple send tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and the one non-obvious parameter detail. However, it omits parameter semantics for chat_id/caption and lacks any usage or behavioral guidance, leaving room for clarification.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the video parameter by specifying it can be a URL or file_id, but chat_id and caption are left to be inferred from names and types, which is insufficient.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a video to a chat.' This distinguishes it from sibling media tools like send_photo and send_document.

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 phrase 'Send a video to a chat' implies the tool is for sending video, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided beyond the obvious resource type.

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