send_video_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the 1-minute maximum length for video notes. However, with 17 parameters there is no disclosure of delivery behavior, notification defaults, or what happens on failure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding or hedging; every word contributes. It is arguably too terse for a 17-parameter send tool, but there is no wasted phrasing to trim.

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, 41%-documented messaging tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin: it omits how the target chat is specified, what a successful send returns, and how optional fields like reply_markup or message_thread_id behave. The 1-minute constraint is the sole piece of substantive context.

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 low at 41%, so the description carries a real burden to explain parameters, and it explains none of them. Neither required argument (chat_id, video_note) nor the notable optional ones (duration, length, thumbnail, reply_parameters, business_connection_id) receive any clarification, leaving the agent dependent on a partially documented 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Send a video note') and immediately disambiguates the format with the parenthetical 'round video message', which separates it from the many other send_* media siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as send_video, but the resource is unambiguous enough to identify the tool.

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 guidance, no mention of when to prefer send_video or send_animation instead, and no statement of preconditions (file size, chat type, bot permissions). The only usage-like information is the 1-minute cap, which is a hard constraint rather than guidance.

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