send_video

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, not destructive), so the description's only added behavioral fact is the MPEG4 support note. For a 26-parameter send operation it says nothing about caption limits, spoiler/protected content effects, notification suppression, or consequence of failure — the non-obvious behaviors an agent would need.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and both carry information — nothing is wasted or padded. The terseness is a symptom of missing content rather than verbosity, so this dimension is scored on form alone.

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?

Given 26 parameters, no output schema, and 42% schema coverage, a two-sentence description is far too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent would have to reverse-engineer most optional parameters and all behavioral side effects without help from either the description or structured fields.

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 42% across 26 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It clarifies only the video format, leaving many undocumented parameters (start_timestamp, message_effect_id, supports_streaming, allow_paid_broadcast, business_connection_id, direct_messages_topic_id, message_thread_id) with no meaning supplied anywhere.

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 video file") and adds that clients support MPEG4, which tells the agent what format is expected. It does not explicitly distinguish this from close siblings like send_animation, send_video_note, or send_document, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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 send_video over send_animation, send_video_note, or send_document, which is the key ambiguity given the crowded sibling set. Nothing is said about required bot permissions, chat type restrictions, or when paid broadcast / business connection parameters must be set.

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