send_paid_media

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

Annotations already declare write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely important behavioral fact — recipients must pay Stars to view — but says nothing about whether the sender is credited, whether payment is per-view or per-message, refundability, or which chat types allow paid media.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity here is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with 41% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is far from sufficient. Nothing explains the media payload shape, the meaning of star_count, or the paid-media specific parameters (allow_paid_broadcast, suggested_post_parameters).

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 41% across 17 parameters, and the two required ones are undocumented: star_count has no description at all (price? per view? per message?) and media is an untyped empty object with no hint about what to supply. The description adds no parameter meaning, leaving the most consequential fields ambiguous.

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 and resource ("send paid media") plus the distinguishing trait that the content requires a Stars payment to view, which separates it from plain send_photo/send_video. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation from the many other send_* tools is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to choose this over send_photo, send_video, send_document, or send_invoice, nor any stated preconditions (chat type, required balance, whether the sender must hold Stars). The agent must infer everything from the single clause about payment.

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