send_media_group

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, so the description does not need to restate that. It does add a genuine behavioral constraint the annotations lack, the 2-10 item album limit, but it says nothing about what happens on partial failure, whether the album is atomic, or any rate/permission constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key constraint is compactly embedded in parentheses. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent can infer the purpose but cannot learn the shape of the media payload or the role of the eight optional parameters from either the description or the schema.

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 20% across 10 parameters, so the description carries most of the burden and does not meet it. It hints that media can be photos, videos, documents, or audios, but never explains that the undocumentedly-typed 'media' property is a structured array of item objects, and leaves reply_parameters, message_thread_id, business_connection_id, protect_content, and the rest entirely unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb (send) and resource (a group of media as an album) and scopes it with the album semantics and the 2-10 item limit. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-item siblings such as send_photo, send_video, and send_document, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 album framing and the '(2-10 items)' bound imply when this tool applies, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over sending items individually, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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