send_live_photo

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context. It adds real value by disclosing the media size/duration limits and the video URL restriction, but says nothing about failure behavior when limits are exceeded or about permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and followed by the hard constraints. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical domain-specific limits well but omits the return shape, error conditions, and any guidance on the many optional delivery/moderation parameters. It is adequate to invoke but not complete.

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 coverage is only 45% across 20 parameters, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does clarify a genuine nuance — that the video component cannot be a URL even though the live_photo schema entry lists 'HTTP URL' as acceptable — but the other ~17 optional parameters (reply_markup, message_thread_id, business_connection_id, etc.) receive no mention.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send a live photo') and explains what the resource is ('a static photo plus a short video'), which distinguishes it conceptually from send_photo and send_video. It does not explicitly name those siblings or say when to prefer this over them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides concrete usage constraints — video at most 10 seconds and 10 MB, no URL for the video — which implicitly tells an agent when this tool is viable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to send_photo, send_video, or send_media_group, leaving selection to inference.

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