send_voice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only clarifies that the voice parameter can be a URL or file_id, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, return values, error behavior, or rate limits. The verb 'send' implies a write operation, but little else is disclosed.

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 sentence with 18 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or repetitive content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core action and the meaning of the voice parameter. However, it omits information about the return value (e.g., the sent message), potential errors, or file size limits, leaving some gaps that an agent might need.

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 description adds value by explaining that 'voice' accepts a URL or file_id, which is not apparent from the bare string type in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it should also clarify the chat_id parameter (though its name is somewhat self-explanatory) and potentially provide format examples. Thus it partially compensates but not fully.

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 action ('Send a voice note') and the target resource ('to a chat'), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling send_audio, but 'voice note' is a distinct concept in messaging platforms, so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_audio, send_document, or send_message. There are no context hints, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the AI to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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