send_location

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, which is the main behavioral signal. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that the location is delivered as a message into a chat, that live_period turns it into an updating live location, or any permission/membership prerequisite for the target chat.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words and a front-loaded verb, which is structurally clean. But the brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from efficiency, so it is concision by omission rather than by discipline.

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?

This is a 19-parameter messaging tool with no output schema and a low-coverage input schema, which demands substantially more descriptive content. A single five-word sentence leaves the agent without enough information to call it correctly in any non-trivial configuration.

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 only 26% across 19 parameters, so the description carries full burden for explaining them, and it explains none. Parameters such as latitude/longitude, heading, live_period, horizontal_accuracy, proximity_alert_radius, and message_thread_id are left entirely undocumented by both the description and the 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?

"Send a point on the map" gives a recognizable verb and resource, so an agent can infer it sends a geographic coordinate. However it does not say the target is a chat, nor does it distinguish this from close siblings like send_venue, edit_message_live_location, or stop_message_live_location, leaving real ambiguity about 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this tool is for one-off location pins versus live-updating locations or venue messages, so selection must be inferred from the name alone.

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